Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The danger of Baker-Hamilton document on Iraq

The following is a translation from Arabic.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission Report is a mobilisation of the agents of America to rescue her from Iraq, and a revitalisation of the ‘New Middle East’ project.

On the 6 December 2006 the Baker-Hamilton Commission published its report entitled “The Way Forward – A New Approach”. The most prominent amongst its proposals were three:

1. What the report referred to as ‘the comprehensive New Diplomatic Offensive to deal with the problems of Iraq’ and that with the establishment of an ‘International Support Group’ to stabilise Iraq, with this group leading the diplomatic offensive. The report held that this group should be made up of all the states bordering Iraq: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordon, Kuwait, Syria and Iran, and other key regional states such as Egypt and the Gulf States and possibly other states as well. However the report focused on Iran and Syria more than the other states, saying: “…the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results…Engaging Iran is problematic, especially given the state of the U.S.-Iranian relationship. Yet the United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan, and both sides should explore whether this model can be replicated in the case of Iraq.”

2. Renewed efforts at resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, about which the report said: “The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict...There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, [the] Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.” It added: “This effort should include—as soon as possible—the unconditional calling and holding of meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, European Union, and the United Nations), between Israel and Lebanon and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and [the] Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel’s right to exist) on the other. The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991…concerning Syria some elements of the negotiated peace should be that Syria use its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers and a commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist and the cessation of weapons being sent to Hizbullah…as well as Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and its full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon…and in exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties.”

3. The redeployment of American forces; the report explained how this would be achieved by:

· Withdrawing the majority of combat forces before the end of 2008;
· Keeping selected (American) military units with the Iraqi units for purposes of training, intelligence gathering as well as air and logistical support; also increasing the number of specific Iraqi units from the three of four thousand deployed at present to between ten and twenty thousand!
· Preserving a part of the American army on standby for (any) emergency involvement as well as others specifically for the execution of military operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq.
· The maintenance of the FBI in Iraq and an expansion of its offices and various fields of investigation including terrorism.

The report added: “Even after the United States has moved all combat brigades out of Iraq, we would maintain a considerable military presence in the region, with our still significant force in Iraq and with our powerful air, ground, and naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, as well as an increased presence in Afghanistan…”

These are the most prominent of projects proposed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission, and it is no coincidence that the report of this commission, formed a few months ago, has been released after the failure of American plans to the end of achieving the ‘New Middle East’ which it strove to achieve through the War in June. This report returns America on its path, only this time under the name of a ‘Diplomatic Offensive’ instead of (the already tried and failed) military offensive.

The disbelieving colonial states study the implementation of their projects through numerous plans (carried out in) phases and by various styles and means, including the military, economic and political means. Yet all of these are deadly poison, even if some are given an attractive cover, as is the case with some of this report.

O Muslims,
This report carries, in its pages, two crimes: First, it places the states in the Muslim lands which surround Iraq and others further away as the foremost defensive barrier in front of the American soldiers in Iraq, facing the Muslims who are resisting these invading soldiers, and thus spilling the blood of Muslims in protecting the souls of the American soldiers, that they may return to the families on their feet, safe and sound, instead of in coffins. Second, it revives anew the atmosphere of negotiations of the sale of the (Muslim) land and (its) people, by taking complete control of Palestine through (getting) the open recognition of Israel by the people of the land and those (hypocrites) around it, irrespective of whether they call themselves resisting states or not; that these states may go public with what they hid within of negotiating (with) and recognising (Israel). Similarly from the resistance organisations in Palestine, irrespective of the secular and Islamic; that these organisations may accept and announce that the issue is what was invaded in 1967; as for what preceded this, it is to be wrapped up in forgetfulness!

This policy included in the Baker-Hamilton Report is so dangerous that it is not permissible for the Muslims to merely pass it by in negligence. If the Muslims leave their rulers to deploy troops to protect the security of America and to oversee its rising out of the quagmire it is in, then America’s influence will flourish in Iraq, its forces will become stronger, its intelligence services will consolidate and increase in number and its emergency forces will do as they like, in safety and security. If the Muslims leave their rulers without accounting and condemning them and working to change them, then both the ruler and the ruled will be doomed. If the (Muslim) soldiers are content in being a shield for the American forces, instead of being a raging fire which surrounds them and gives victory to the people of Iraq, liberating it from the influence of the disbelieving invader…if they are content in sitting around, then their’s shall be humiliation and disgrace; their crime shall be bigger and their punishment greater, since they have the ability and are more able to make the change then the common people.

O Muslims,
Indeed the reality becomes clearer every day, that America, and the West in general, regardless of its in artillery and weapons, does not have the ability to establish its presence in any of the Muslim lands without the support of its agents from within.

In Palestine, despite the British mandate upon it, and their bringing the Jews to it from everywhere, they were not able to conquer Palestine in 1948, had it not been for the betrayal of the Arab rulers who deployed their seven armies with the excuse of rescuing Palestine, but in reality handing it over and withdrawing, except for a small minority who fought (bravely) saving their iman. Then when the betrayal of the Arab rulers was brought to light and the people lost their trust of them, secular organisations were formed announcing to the people that they would liberate Palestine ‘from the river to the sea’. Yet they ended with giving away the river and the sea, and were content with two states in Palestine. They recognised and accepted the state of Israel in the greater part of Palestine before the Israelis recognised for them the right to have a statelet in a small part of it!

Then when the betrayal of these secular organisations came to light and the people lost their trust of their sayings that they would liberate Palestine, there appeared Islamic organisations announcing that they would liberate Palestine ‘from the river to the sea’, yet they too ended up, like their predecessors, accepting openly and in broad daylight that they desire a state on the borders of 1967, and they considered this a great, dignified victory!

Would the Israelis or the Americans or the Europeans dare to propose two-state solutions in Palestine had they not found in the people of Palestine those who accept selling the greater part of it to the Jews in exchange for a weak statelet on a small part of it?!

In Iraq and in Afghanistan, had America not found a Karzai here and a Karzai there, would it be possible for them to seek to establish themselves in these lands?!

In Lebanon, America and Europe struggle for their interests using the Lebanese people as tools, who dispute with each other, fight and even kill. The politicians, irrespective of whether they are in government or in the opposition, move back and forth in circles until the real players from outside (America and Europe) agree on a solution, to be implemented by the puppets inside.

In Somalia, after the Muslims there turned towards the Islamic courts, supporting them and partaking in them without any fighting, and the country was on the verge of gathering in its entirety around the courts in the name of Islam, America sought an excuse with the request of the Karzai of Somalia, Abdullah Yusuf, in the name of the temporary government, and sought a resolution from the security council to allow the United African forces to enter as a precursor to the international forces with the excuse of stopping any conflict between the forces of the courts and those of the temporary government. Yet who are the forces of the temporary government? The government of Abdullah Yusuf is a creation of America which would practically be dead had it not been for the support of America’s agents and particularly the Ethiopian government. Even though the (forces of the) Islamic courts in Somalia are small in number and artillery, America is incapable of entering by force. Rather it uses its agents from outside and inside (Somalia): Sudan through the guise of peace and negotiations, Ethiopia through the war and conspiracies, and its puppet inside Somalia, Abdullah Yusuf, in whose name the resolutions were passed. Britain too worked on this path, attempting to motivate its agents in Yemen to open for her a gap, albeit a small one, from where they can enter their spears into Somalia.

Similarly in all the colonised Muslim lands, the disbelieving colonial states, regardless of the greatness of their artillery and weapons, cannot seek to establish themselves in the land without the support of puppets, moving at their call in that land, selling their deen for their dunya; nay, for the dunya of others. This is the reality, which none can deny, except the one blind of eye and heart. [ الصُّمُّ البُكْمُ الذين لا يعقلون ] “…the deaf, the dumb, those who do not understand” (al-Anfal: 22)

O Muslims,
The Baker-Hamilton Report is a mobilisation of the rulers in Muslim lands, both those near Iraq and those further away, for them to become the first line of defence protecting the troubled American army, thus spilling the blood of the Muslims instead of the blood of the invading disbeliever. The report returns the minds to the mobilisation by Bush senior of some of the Arab rulers in deploying their armies in support of his in the Second Gulf War; yet the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, what was related by al-Nasa’i:

«إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِنْ كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ مَعَ مُشْرِكٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ r أَلاَ لاَ تَرَاءَى نَارَاهُمَا»
“I am absolved from any Muslim who fights with a mushrik, then he said, Nay their forces should not meet;” meaning they should not join forces in battle.

Although the report is filled with paths that lead to the Fire, the rulers have began competing in showing that appropriateness and readiness for the job. Indeed the Syrian government is all but dancing at the publication of the report.

O Muslims,
We firmly warn every ruler and person in authority from extending their support to America in rescuing her, or in extending a hand in negotiations with or recognition of Israel on any inch of Palestine; it warns them (to be wary) of the Wrath of Allah and the wrath of the slaves of Allah. For when the punishment (of such betrayals) reaches them, no one will be able to rescue them for their dark end in this world and the hereafter; not America, nor Europe, nor Israel; nay, their state with them will be like that of Shaytan with those who follow him:

] كمثل الشيطان إذ قال للإنسان اكفرْ فلما كَفَرَ قال إني بريء منك [
“…like the example of Shaytan when he says to man: disbelieve! And when he disbelieves he says, ‘I am free of you’!…” (al-Hashr: 16)

[هذا بلاغٌ للناس وليُنذَروا به ]
“This is a proclamation for the people, that they may be warned thereby..”

17th Dhi Qa’dah 1427 AH
Dec 8th 2006 CE

No comments: