The End of Iraq (5)

By Peter Galbraith
Americans Incompetence - part 1

Americans Incompetence (2)

Although President Bush proclaimed America's mission was to bring the blessings of freedom to the Iraqi people, his administration was reluctant to trust them with democracy.
...
Specifically, the Administration proposed to limit the choices of the peoples of Iraq by having the country's permanent constitution writ­ten by Iraqis selected by the Americans. The hand-picked Iraqis would then be assisted by American constitutional advisors who would en­sure that the constitution included Western-style human rights pro­tections, incorporated a system of checks and balances, preserved the unity of the country, centralized control of oil, and promoted eco­nomic and social policies liked by American conservatives. The constitution would be submitted to the Iraqi peoples in a referendum. They would then be faced with the choice of either accepting the constitu­tion and regaining sovereignty, or rejecting it and having a prolonged
occupation. The scheme reflected the extraordinary ambitions of the Administration's neoconservative would-be nation-builders who wanted to leave their ideological imprint on Iraq. It was also undemocratic.

Highest Religious Authority and the Leader of the Hawza (Najaf)

In 2003, the most influential man in Iraq turned out not to be the American viceroy, Jerry Bremer, but a frail seventy-three-year-old Shi­ite cleric who lived in a modest house near the shrine of Ali in Najaf. An Iranian by birth and citizenship, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was determined that the Bush Administration not prevent Iraq's Shiite reli­gious leaders from creating an Islamic state if, as Sistani knew full well they would, their voters wanted one.
Sistani adopted a straightforward position: Iraq's constitution should be written by elected Iraqis and, as a corollary, the United States should transfer power to an elected government, not an appointed one. He wanted elections held as soon as possible, but not later than 2004 and with the occupation ending immediately afterward.
Bremer came up with one strategy after another to avoid meeting Sistani's demand. As a result, the Iranian cleric became the champion of Iraqi democracy while the American administrator appeared un­willing to trust the Iraqi people. To make matters worse for the Ameri­cans, Sistani won every battle with Bremer. Bremer and the Bush Administration came across not only as undemocratic but also as weak.
The End of Iraq, page 136-137.

To be continued...
Pictures and titles in this article are not from the book "The End of Iraq".

UN Financial Sanctions on Iran: Political Confrontation, Iran's Response to US Threats

By Prof. Akbar E. Torbat

The UN Security Council 60 days’ grace period for the sanctions imposed on Iran ended on February 21, 2007. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Feb 22, that “Iran has ignored the U.N. Security Council resolution 1737 to freeze its uranium enrichment program and has expanded the program by setting up hundreds of centrifuges.” Iran argues that it produces low level enriched uranium for nuclear fuel use, but the West claims Iran plans further enrichment suitable for making atomic bombs.

Iran contends that it has “inalienable right” under Article IV of Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapon Treaty to develop, research, and produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and therefore the Council’s resolution mainly pushed by the United States is not justified. Iran has indicated repeatedly that it will not suspend its uranium enrichment operation as a precondition for negotiations. As the Council resolution deadline passed on Feb 21, 2007, the US – Iran political observers wonder what will happen next. The Five permanent members of the council and Germany started a meeting on Feb 26, to discuss the course of action they will take regarding the nuclear standoff. It is expected that the US may push the Council members for further sanctions; however some Council members may oppose it. In that case the US will probably increase its own financial pressures on Iran.

Measures by the US and its allies

Iran has been under US unilateral measures and sanctions more or less since 1979. In 1995, US imposed comprehensive trade and investment sanctions on Iran, which were followed by extra-territorial sanctions in 1996. The extra-territorial sanctions, which had not been seriously implemented, are now put to action in case by case basis. Coincided with the UN resolution, the US has increased its financial squeeze on Iran beyond the UN recommended measures. It has blocked American companies in dealing with several Iranian Banks, including Bank Saderat and Bank Sepah, which are accused of sending money to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Until now US allies have had mixed reactions to the UN resolution. Germany, that is the largest exporter to Iran, is not apparent to put any economic pressure on Iran. Cutting its exports to Iran, which are mainly industrial machineries can worsen the already high rate of unemployment in Germany.

France also has major commercial ties with Iran and it is not expected to push for punishing the country. France is a major exporter of automobile and its accessories to Iran. Cutting export to Iran will add to unemployment in France. Furthermore, the French oil company Total, is engaged in a major oil project in Iran. The company substituted for the US’s Connoco that could not sign the intended Siri oil filed contract when the US sanctioned Iran in 1995. Moreover, France’s banks, including BNP Paribas have about 20 percent share of Iranian foreign borrowings. Up to now, French companies have not shown any noticeable change in their dealings with Iran.

Meanwhile, the European Union and Japan announced few days before the UN’s deadline that they will support the Council resolution. On February 12, the European Union released a draft resolution stating that it will adopt the UN resolution 1737. EU 25 member countries have over 30 billion euro exports per year to Iran and only very small portion of the exports could be curtailed due to the sanctions.

Stuart Levy, the Treasury’s Undersecretary, has been shuttling Europe in the past few months to convince the European banks to cut their ties with Iran. Some major European banks such as USB AG based in Zurich, Credit Suisse Group, and Standard Chartered of the UK have indicted that they will curtail their financial dealings with Iran. However, it is not anticipated that the European banks will cut their ties with Iran, unless their home countries devise a concrete policy for financial sanctions on Iran, and that is not likely. At the same time, Japan announced that it will freeze the financial assets of 10 Iranian entities and 12 individuals who may be involved in Iran’s nuclear program effective Feb. 17, 2007. Japan is the largest importer of Iranian oil, and has participated in the development of Azadegan oil field despite of US objection. Therefore, it is not expected that Japan will take any further measures to harm Iran.

Thus far, the UN resolution has been seen to be symbolic in nature and will not have any major impact that can damage the Iranian economy.

Other Countries Reactions

Russia’s Vladimir Putin in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February this year strongly criticized the US unilateralism in the world international affairs. He said a unipolar world will lead to more wars and international conflicts. The theme of the speech indicated that Russia is worried about the US military build up in its backyard and will likely take measures to oppose it. Consequently, it is not anticipated that Russia will impose any pressure on Iran. Despite of US opposition, in the last two years, Russia has sold to Iran about 1 billion dollar worth of weapons, including the sophisticated Tor-M1 missile systems. Few days before the UN deadline, Russia that is completing the Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran, indicated that the delivery of the plant may be delayed due to Iranian nonpayment. However, Iran said it has honored its contractual $25 (19 euro) million monthly payments and the only problem was payment in euro instead of US dollar. Russia’s action seemed to be a political gesture right before the UN deadline. Russia wanted to show that it is imposing pressure on Iran right before the UN ultimatum deadline.

China as well has very good economic relations with Iran. In the past few years, China has signed several oil contracts with Iran, and currently Sinopec, the Chinese oil company, is negotiating a $16 billion contract to develop Iran’s giant Yadavaran oilfield. Furthermore, China is ranked Iran’s second exporter and importer. Because of its sizable trade relations with Iran, it doesn’t seem that it will harm Iran under the United States pressures. Because both Russia and China have veto power at the Security Council, they will probably oppose any further Council’s sanctions against Iran.

What's more, Italy and Spain also have good economic relations with Iran. They have signed oil contracts with Iran. India too signed a pipeline deal with Iran last month that gives Iran annual revenues of about $10 billion per year. Although India has indicated that it will comply with the UN resolution 1737, but this is not a significant factor in its good trade relations with Iran. Furthermore, Iran’s trades with other countries in the region, Latin America, and Africa have rapidly increased in recent months.

As it appears, further sanctions could be only imposed by the US and its Anglo Saxon allies. Such sanctions of course may put strains on the Iranian economy, but their impact will be mild. Iran is taking some counter measures of its own to deal with the expected economic pressures.

Iran's response

Due to long time US trade and investment sanctions, Iran has been able to adjust its economy to certain degree under the sanctions. Despite of the US extra-territorial sanctions, Iran has been able to attract about $20 billion investment from other countries in its oil and gas development projects since 1995.

In order to absorb private investments in its oil and gas projects, Iran has recently relaxed the state control over its downstream oil development projects and has opened them to private sector. The upstream that includes the oil and gas reserves will remain under control of the government.

In the last several years, Iran has signed major contracts with international oil companies to lure their investment. According to an article in daily newspaper Kayhan, in just past year, Iran has awarded about $4 billion worth of oil and gas contracts to domestic and foreign private sector.

To get better prices and sell its oil in non-dollar currencies, Iran plans to launch an international oil bourse (exchange) next month in the island of Kish located in the Persian Gulf. At this bourse, oil and its derivatives contracts will be traded in Iranian rial, euro and other major currencies. Iran’s Economic and Finance Minister Davoud Danesh-Jafari believes that Iran’s bourse will enhance competitive prices for oil and its derivatives. However, success of the bourse will depend on cooperation of other counties. At present, oil is traded in US dollar in New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) as well as in London International Petroleum Exchange (IPE). Iran’s oil bourse will threaten the supremacy of these exchanges. It is anticipated that some major oil producing countries will participate in this bourse, because NYMEX and IPE are not currently working in their favor. Also, Iran’s petroleum bourse might be opened during Saturdays and Sundays, which are working days in the Middle East and its time zone is in the mid way between Europe and East Asia’s time zones. The new petroleum bourse can create an oil market that is open 7 days a week around the clock. If the bourse is successful, it can reduce demand for Eurodollar (that is dollar deposits outside the United States) and can contribute to popularity of euro.

Furthermore, Iran has already converted most of its international dollar reserves to euro, other major currencies, and gold. According to the Head of Central Bank Ebrahim Sheibani, Iran’s dollar reserves are down to less than 30%. So far Iran has not had any problems to open letter of credits for its imports in foreign banks. Also, Iran has pre-sold its petrochemical exports to foreign countries until 2009.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has recently issued a directive emphasizing privatization of some of the state owned industries under Article 44 of the Iranian constitution. This article limits participation of private sector in basic industries, but leaves place for private sector in some industries when beneficial to the national economy.

The private banking industry growth is the most visible in the private sector. In the last couple of years, formation of private banks has been encouraged in order to increase deposits in the banking system. At present, Iran’s private banks’ deposits are about 10% of state banks but they are growing rapidly according to an article published on February 18 in the daily newspaper, Iran. Almost half of Iran’s bank deposits are established in the greater Tehran. As a result, establishment of private banks throughout other regions is expected to attract more of people’s savings and will facilitates liquidity in the country in the wake of international financial sanctions.

Political Confrontation

On the political front, the US has threatened Iran with possible use of military force if diplomatic and economic sanctions do not change Iran’s decision to continue with its uranium enrichment.

In the past couple of weeks, the US has accused Sepah-e Ghods, a unit associated with Sepah-e Pasdaran, of supplying weapons to anti occupation forces in Iraq. The US so far has not directly targeted the clerical leaders of Islamic Republic namely Supreme Leader Khamenei and former president Rafsanjani. Instead, the US has pointed at President Mahmood Ahmadinejad who has stayed firm against US pressures. It appears US is building a case to justify use of military force against Iran. The US is trying to link Ahmadinejad and his affiliated Sepah-e Pasdaran with supplying weapons to anti-US militants in Iraq. Ahmadinejad has popularity among Iran’s underprivileged class who were disappointed with former clerical presidents due to their inability to enhance economic welfare for the poor. It is unlikely that US can cause Ahmadinejad to be deposed by any means.

In the mean time, Iran has accused the US and Britain for supporting ethnic minority rebels such as Blotches and Kurds against the Islamic Republic. Iran has said that the explosives and arsenal used in a car bomb by the terrorists in Zahedan in late February came from the US. Experts believe, any use of military force against Iran could disrupt the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf and will cause a significant increase in oil prices. That will have a serious impact on the economies of oil importing countries and may shake the world financial markets. In fact, after the UN deadline, oil prices have increased. Some analysts believe, the collapse of the US stock market on February 27, 2007 was partly related to the concerns about possible US military action against Iran. After market close on the same day, Secretary Condoleezza Rice suddenly changed her position on Iran and said US supports Iran’s participation in a conference that is planned in mid-march for stabilizing Iraq sectarian violence. Washington desire to attend the conference alongside Iran is a turnaround from previous position of no dialogue with Iran about the situation in Iraq.
How the two countries’ conflicts will be resolved only time will tell.

Akbar E. Torbat teaches at California State University – Dominguez Hills and has published various articles in academic journals concerning the US – Iran economic relations.

Losing Focus: Peace and Justice Movement in Britain at Crossroad

By Ramzy Baroud
Thursday 08th of March 2007

Growing up in a Palestinian refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, it was a very familiar encounter: Israeli soldiers storming our house accompanied by shouts of terror and a barrage of insults. Such recollections make me shudder to this day.

Just the mere summoning of those memories of my childhood in the Nuseirat refugee camp haunting me not only in childhood but in my adulthood as well, shall most likely accompany me for the rest of my life - almost instantaneously forcing me to relive my mother’s agonizing cries, my father’s pleas for the welfare of his children, my brothers and I clutching to each other as the soldiers try to break us a part, the physical degradation, the verbal abuse, then the utter silence when the soldiers finally leave, the sounds of the engines fading away into the camp’s darkened roads, followed by far away screams from some other family in some other place, as the tragic scenario faithfully repeats itself.

My family’s house was positioned in a location that was simply a nightmare, since it stood at the helm of the camp’s main square, often referred to as Red Square by locals, remembering the many Palestinians killed in and around it while protesting the occupation during the uprising or Intifada of 1987. Israeli soldiers began their nightly hunts for terrorists, i.e. stone throwing kids, from that central point. My house was often the first in the soldiers’ route: it was there where they initiated their formidable mission. As horrifying as it was, it was a most predictable routine: we would turn all lights off in anticipation, my parents would take their positions to open the door as quickly as possible once the loud banging at the door commenced; once the Israeli jeeps’ engines were turned off, it was the matter of a few seconds before it all began: a fury of pounding at the door; “who is it?” my dad would ask, as if he suspected anyone else but the tormenting soldiers: their reply was always the same, always as confident as it was terrifying; “Yahoud”, they would reply.

I grew up making the association between “Yahoud”, the Arabic word for “Jews”, and the horror my family and had experienced. When my cousin Wael was shot dead in his teenage years, while on his way to study with me- it was the “Yahoud” who killed him. When my childhood friend Raed Munis was shot repeatedly as he dug a grave for a neighbor of ours, shot just an hour earlier, he was killed by the “Yahoud”. When my mother was struck in the chest repeatedly by the butt of an Israeli soldier’s machine gun, a beating that led to her untimely death 50 days later, that too was carried out by the “Yahoud”.

Palestinians in the Occupied Territories ascribe all of these practices to the “Yahoud”, simply because this is how Israel wishes to define itself, a Jewish state. As a child, in my many many terrifying encounters with the army, this is, without exception, how they chose to address themselves. Thus, every inch of land that was stolen from Palestinians in the last 40 years of occupation was done in the name of the “Yahoud” and their security; every settlement erected on a poor Palestinian farmer’s orchard, every life that was taken, every brick of every wall that was built and continues to be constructed over confiscated Palestinian land in defiance of international law was also done in the name of the “Yahoud”. Palestinians, thus - most Arabs and Muslims and others as well - hold the “Yahoud” responsible for their plight, not out of their ingrained and inherent anti-Semitism, as some so shrewdly or naively choose to believe, but because on the basis of its Jewishness Israel excused all of its inexcusable actions. If someone is to blame for this, it is Israel, not its detractors. It’s as simple as that.

But, of course, it’s not always as simple as that. When I moved to the US, I realized, correctly that the term “Yahoud” is not befitting, for the old connotations of the name cannot be accepted in Western societies where Jews have historically been a recurring victim, and where a large number of activists and fellow writers, of which many became close friends of mine are also Jewish. A distinction between a Jew and a Zionist was indeed an imperative, though not always easy, for Israel extorts much needed financial, political, moral and other forms of support relying primarily on Jewish constituents in North America and Western Europe. Many of the latter demonstrate their allegiance to Israel in more ways than one can recall. Unfortunately, in the minds of many, being Jewish requires one to unquestionably support the “Jewish State”. Most publications that define themselves as Jewish in the Western hemisphere seem more absorbed by Israeli politics, Israel’s security, and so forth, than engaged in their own political and cultural realms. The relationship has in fact become so blurred that it’s becoming nearly impossible and most confounding to set apart the anti-occupation activist from the anti-Zionist from the anti-Semitic. Naturally Israel and its supporters embrace, if not contribute to this confusion in most underhanded ways: labeling at a whim whomever is critical of the Israeli occupation, be it a respected Harvard Professor or a former President as anti-Semitic. Israel’s crowd hurl such designations so very often that many people prefer to steer clear from the whole matter, failing to take a moral stance on an issue that has for long irked the conscience of humanity and has contributed to global instability in countless ways.

However, instead of confronting the Zionist scheme that has brought such untold harm to the image of one of the greatest and oldest monotheistic faiths by holding Israel and its associates to account, there is a growing an alarming trend where members of the peace and justice movement have themselves fallen into the ominous trap: engaging in most ruinous and consuming scuffles, isolating members and entire groups for allegedly being anti-Semitic. While taking a moral stance against racism in all of its forms is a requisite to for any genuine peace and justice activist, the intense debate in some instances is reaching such grievous points that is threatening to tear apart the peace and justice movement.

A most notable example is the quarrel in the United Kingdom between members of Jews against Zionism and those of Deir Yassin Remembered; the former, accusing members of the latter of anti-Semitism, is endorsing a motion at an upcoming conference of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign that would ostracize the Deir Yassin group from the peace and justice movement. Members of both groups have spoken out strongly against the maltreatment of Palestinians in the past and both have a lot to offer PSC and its various activities. However, the motion, but the entire episode is a continuation of an alarming trend that began in the US several years ago, and has consumed activists, distracting them from the real fight. Moreover, it is dangerously compromising constructive dialogue and freedom of speech, the lack thereof has historically sidelined the pro Palestinian voice for decades. If members of both groups are unable to work jointly and sort out their differences through dialogue, then they should refrain from taking their fights to the public, as has been the case in Britain, in ways that are demoralizing the entire movement. It also ought to be noted that as far as Israel is concerned, any criticism of its occupation of the West Bank, no matter how polite or subtle, is an unforgivable form of anti-Semitism; thus there is no need for any member of the peace and justice movement to exasperate the Israeli witch hunt. Indeed, Israel is more than capable of prolonging such campaigns on its own.

There are many Palestinian children who are still huddling inside their homes in fear of the encroaching tanks and the hordes of unforgiving soldiers, who continue to commit untold atrocities in the name of the “Jewish State”; it’s those depraved individuals and the government that has assigned them to their vile mission, who deserve to be isolated and labeled; it’s Israel who must be held to account, by Jewish and non Jewish individuals and groups alike, to end its exploitation of the Jewish people and their religion.

I believe that the action of a true peace and justice activist must stem from concern for humanity, not from racism and prejudice; however, to suppress freedom of expression, settle personal grievances at the expense of a most colorful and ideologically diverse movement, thus the honorable cause it stands for, is to do an immense disservice to all of us concerned with bringing to a halt a most bloody and raging conflict in the Middle East

According to the World Food Program (WFP) forty-six percent of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are food insecure; the Israeli wall is snaking around the West Bank at an astonishing speed; human rights violations are committed against vulnerable Palestinians with impunity in broad day light with tacit or explicit support from various Western countries led by the United States; there is no time to be wasted: all energies must be channeled in so prudent a way to stop Israel’s inhumane treatment of the Palestinians and end the occupation. I plead to all of you, to work for peace, to redress injustice or at least to do nothing that would jeopardize the work of the peace and justice movement, neither in Britain, nor anywhere else.

Ramzy Baroud is a veteran Palestinian-American journalist and former Al-Jazeera producer. Ramzy Baroud taught Mass Communication at Australia's Curtin University of Technology, and is Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle.

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (4)

By Jimmy Carter
The Israeli Apartheid - part 1

The Israeli Apartheid - part 2

(During Carter's and his wife's Rosalynn's regular visits to the Middle East in the first ten years after leaving the White House)
There was a unanimous complaint among Palestinian political leaders and others that the worst and most persis­tent case of abuse was in Hebron, about twenty miles south of Jerusalem, where the biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are buried. About 450 extremely militant Jews have moved into the heart of the ancient part of the city, pro­tected by several thousand Israeli troops.

The division of the center of Hebron in 1997. The green zone is Israeli and the yellow zone is Palestinian. 99.7% of the population is Palestinian.

Heavily armed, these settlers attempt to drive the Palestinians away from the holy sites, often beating those they consider to be "tres­passers," expanding their area by confiscating adjacent homes, and deliberately creating physical confrontations. When this occurs, the troops impose long curfews on the 150,000 Palestinian citizens of Hebron, prohibiting them from leaving their own homes to go to school or shops or to participate in the normal life of an urban community. The Palestinians claimed that the undisguised purpose of the ha­rassment was to drive non-Jews from the area. The United Nations reported that more than 150 Israeli checkpoints had been established in and around the city.

... any manufactured goods or farm products were not permitted to be sold in Is­rael if they competed with Israeli produce, so any surplus had to be given away, dumped, or exported to Jordan. The fruit, flowers, and perishable vegetables of the more activist families were often held at the Allenby Bridge until they spoiled, and in some areas the farmers were not permitted to replace fruit trees that died in their orchards. Their most an­guished complaints were about many thousands of ancient olive trees that were being cut down by the Israelis. Access to water was a persistent issue. Each Israeli settler uses five times as much water as a Palestinian neighbor, who must pay four times as much per gallon. They showed us photographs of Israeli swimming pools adjacent to Palestinian villages where drinking water had to be hauled in on tanker trucks and dispensed by the bucketful. Most of the hilltop settle­ments are on small areas of land, so untreated sewage is dis­charged into the surrounding fields and villages.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, page 120-121.

Since 1980, with the Likud Party in control of the government, the taking of Arab land had been greatly accelerated, and the building of Jewish set­tlements in the West Bank had become one of the govern­ment's top priorities. Benvenisti [Meron Benvenisti, former Israeli deputy mayor of Jerusalem, who was devoting his full time to a definitive analysis of Israel's policies in the occupied territories] added that the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank had been previously limited but that new policies and present trends meant that the fur­ther annexation of substantial occupied areas was probably a foregone conclusion.
Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, page 125.

To be continued...
Pictures, maps and titles in this article are not from the book "Peace Not Apartheid".

The End of Iraq (4)

By Peter Galbraith
The End of Iraq - part 1
The End of Iraq - part 2
The End of Iraq - part 3

Americans Incompetence (1)

At the end of April, Rumsfeld told Garner that his services were no longer required. John Sawers, the British ambassador to Egypt who was in Baghdad as the eyes and ears of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, cabled Downing Street about the change: "Garner's outfit, ORHA [Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance], is an unbelievable mess. No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure, and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis. ...Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired Generals are well-meaning but out of their depth." The British used professionals in Iraq and saw the occupation disaster much sooner than the ideologues in the Pentagon and the White House. Blair, uniquely, was a foreigner that the Bush Administration could not afford to ignore.

Bremer is awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, December 14, 2004

To replace Garner, Rumsfeld contacted L. Paul Bremer III, known as Jerry ...
Bremer had never been to Iraq, did not speak Arabic, had never served in a post-conflict society, and had no experience in nation building. And he had less than two weeks to "read into" his new assign­ment, a process of oral and written briefings that normally lasts several months even for a routine ambassadorial assignment such as the Netherlands. For a full year before the war, the State Department had spent millions of dollars working with Iraqi exiles and experts to pre­pare a fifteen-volume blueprint for how Iraq might be governed after the war. The Administration was so disorganized and so faction ridden that the Defense Department (for which Bremer would work and which handled his briefings) did not tell him that this State De­partment study existed. He would learn of it in the press sometime after arriving in Baghdad.
...
Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12, 2003. On May 16, he in­formed the Iraqi Leadership Council that there would be no interim government and no early handover of power. This came exactly eleven days after Jay Garner-speaking for the United States-had announced that the core of an interim government would be in place by May 15. The same day, Bremer issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 1. It banned persons serving in the top four levels of the Ba'ath Party from holding government employment, now and in the future. On May 23, Bremer signed CPA Order Number 2. It dissolved Iraq's army, its air force, its navy, its secret police, its intelligence services, the Republican Guards, the Ba'ath Party militia, and the Ministry of Defense.

For eighty years, Sunni Arabs were the guardians of Iraqi unity, keeping the country together by force. The American invasion ended Sunni Arab rule. Now, in a few strokes of a pen, Bremer completed Iraq's revolution by destroying the pillars on which Sunni Arabs had relied to rule Iraq-the military, the security services, and the Ba'ath Party.
Although he did not know it, Bremer had sealed Iraq's fate as a uni­tary nation. All the king's horses and all the king's men could not put Humpty Dumpty back together again. This did not stop Bremer from spending the next fourteen months trying to do just that.
The End of Iraq, page 117-119.

Bremer's decision to assume all power for himself rather than trans­fer authority to an Iraqi government was probably the most fateful of his decisions. Every Iraqi leader, including the most pro- American, says it was Bremer's decision to keep power that changed the United States from being seen by many as liberator to being universally regarded as an occupier.
The End of Iraq, page 122.

To be continued...
Pictures and titles in this article are not from the book "The End of Iraq".