The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FW: IRAQ: IRAQ-NEWS - December 19, 2001 2/2

fyi all -  best, f.

 THE IRAQ HAWKS by Seymour Hersh, New Yorker

 December 24, 2001 issue
 THE IRAQ HAWKS - Can their war plan work?

 In November of 1993, Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National
 Congress, an opposition group devoted to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein,
 presented the Clinton Administration with a detailed, four-phase war
 plan entitled "The End Game," along with an urgent plea for money to
 finance it. "The time for the plan is now," Chalabi wrote. "Iraq is on
 the verge of spontaneous combustion. It only needs a trigger to set off
 a chain of events that will lead to the overthrow of Saddam." It was a
 message that Chalabi would repeat for the next eight years.

 Chalabi, who is fifty-six, was born into a wealthy Iraqi Shiite banking
 family and earned a doctorate in mathematics from the University
 of Chicago. He received money and authorization from the Clinton
 Administration to put his plan into effect, and by October, 1994,
 a small C.I.A. outpost had been set up in an area in northern Iraq
 controlled by the Kurds. Chalabi's headquarters were nearby. His plan
 called for simultaneous insurrections in Basra, the largest city in
 southern Iraq, which is dominated by disaffected Shiites (Saddam and
 his followers are Sunnis), and in Mosul and Kirkuk, Kurdish cities in
 the north. Massive Iraqi military defections would follow. "We called
 it Chalabi's rolling coup," Bob Baer, the C.I.A. agent in charge,

 At the time, Baer has written in "See No Evil," a memoir to be published
 next month, "the C.I.A. didn't have a single source in Iraq. . . . Not
 only were there no human sources in country, the C.I.A. didn't have any
 in the neighboring countries-Iran, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia-who
 reported on Iraq. Like the rest of the U.S. government, its intelligence-
 gathering apparatus was blind when it came to Iraq."

 In March, 1995, Chalabi's insurrection was launched, and failed
 dramatically. "There was nothing there," Baer told me. "No one moved
 except one Kurdish leader acting on his own-three days too late. Nothing
 happened." As far as recruiting agents from inside the Iraqi military,
 "Chalabi didn't deliver a single lieutenant, let alone a colonel or a
 general." Baer emphasized that he wasn't dismissive of Chalabi himself,
 because, as he put it, "Chalabi was trying." Even so, Baer said, "he was
 bluffing-he thought it was better to bluff and try to win. But he was
 forced to play bridge with no trump cards." Baer went on, "He always
 thought it was a psychological war, and that if Clinton would stand up
 and say, 'It's time for the guy to go,' people would do it."

 Chalabi had written in his war plan that if there was "no movement" and
 if Saddam was permitted to export oil, "then the psychology of the people
 will turn. Saddam will appear to open [for] them hope for the future. At
 that point he will have escaped." A month after the failed insurrection,
 the United Nations Security Council allowed Iraq to resume oil sales
 under its Oil for Food program, insuring a flow of money to the regime.

 By late 1996, the Iraqi Army had all but driven Chalabi's operation out
 of northern Iraq. A hundred and thirty Iraqi National Congress members
 were executed. Chalabi managed to maintain his hold on the I.N.C.,
 despite repeated charges from the coalition's members of mismanagement,
 corruption, and self-aggrandizement, and he moved his anti-Saddam base
 to London. His plans were largely written off by the State Department
 and the C.I.A. America's goal would be to pursue Saddam's removal by
 military or political coup, and not by open rebellion. "I don't see an
 opposition group that has the viability to overthrow Saddam," Marine
 Corps General Anthony Zinni, the commander of the United States Central
 Command (CENTCOM), who is now serving as the U.S. special envoy to the
 Middle East, later told a Senate committee. "Even if we had Saddam gone,
 we could end up with fifteen, twenty, or ninety groups competing for

 Chalabi bore his fall from official favor gracefully. Disdainful of the
 Clinton Administration, which he felt had abandoned him in northern Iraq,
 he took his campaign to the press and to Congress, and the I.N.C. soon
 emerged as a rallying point for political conservatives and for many of
 the former senior officials who had run the Gulf War for the first
 President Bush.

 In February of 1998, forty prominent Americans-including Caspar
 Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, and Donald Rumsfeld, all former Secretaries
 of Defense-signed an open letter to President Clinton warning that
 Saddam Hussein still posed an immediate threat, because of his stockpile
 of biological and chemical weapons. They urged that the government once
 again consider fostering a popular uprising against the Iraqi government.
 Echoing Chalabi's 1993 war plan, the letter writers argued that Saddam's
 weakness was his lack of popular support: "He rules by terror. The same
 brutality which makes it unlikely that any coups or conspiracies can
 succeed makes him hated by his own people. . . . Iraq today is ripe for
 a broad-based insurrection." Their first two recommendations were that
 the I.N.C. be recognized as the provisional government of Iraq and be
 reinstalled in northern Iraq. Another recommendation urged the Clinton
 Administration to release Iraqi assets frozen at the time of the Gulf
 War, which total more than $1.5 billion, to help fund the provisional

 The letter, like similar pleas from congressional Republicans, failed
 to bring about a change in policy, although eight months later President
 Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocated ninety-seven
 million dollars for training and military equipment for the Iraqi
 opposition. Because of continued skepticism within the government, the
 I.N.C. has received less than a million dollars of that money, but the
 State Department has provided the group with roughly ten million dollars
 in routine operating funds.

 During the Presidential campaign last year, George W. Bush and Al Gore
 both promised support for the opposition to Saddam-Bush said he would
 "take him out"- if he continued to develop weapons of mass destruction.
 Most arms-control experts believe that Iraq has in fact continued
 to develop such weapons, but after the election Condoleezza Rice,
 the national-security adviser, made it clear, according to a former
 government official, that the new Administration would not make Iraq
 a priority. "Her feeling was that Saddam was a small problem-chump
 change - that we needed to wall him into a corner so we could get on
 with the big issues: Russia, China, NATO expansion, a new relationship
 with India and, down the road, with Africa," the former official said.

 Before September 11th, according to one of Chalabi's advisers, the
 I.N.C.'s war plan revolved around training, encouraging defectors, and
 American enforcement of the no-fly zone in southern Iraq. The idea was
 to recruit two hundred instructors and put them to work training a force
 of five thousand or more dissident Iraqis, reinforced by soldiers of
 fortune, some of whom, inevitably, would be retired Americans who had
 served in Special Forces units. The United States would also be asked
 to institute a no-drive zone, backed up by air strikes, to protect the
 insurgents from attack by Iraqi tanks.

 A Chalabi adviser explained, "You insert this force into southern Iraq" -
 the site of most of Iraq's oil fields-"perhaps at an abandoned airbase
 west of Basra, and you sit there and let Saddam come to you. And if he
 doesn't come you go home and say we failed. This is not the Bay of Pigs."
 On the other hand, the adviser said, "if the insurgent force took Basra -
 that's the end. You don't have to go to Baghdad. You tie up his oil and
 he'll collapse."

 Then came September 11th, and the quick victories in Afghanistan, where
 the combination of internal rebellion, intense bombing, and Special
 Forces deployment turned the Taliban out of power within weeks. Ahmad
 Chalabi has now given the Bush Administration an updated war plan,
 which calls not only for bombing but for the deployment of thousands of
 American Special Forces troops.

 There is a second significant addition to the plan: the participation
 of Iran, which fought a protracted war with Iraq during the nineteen-
 eighties. The government of President Mohammad Khatami, America's
 newfound partner in the war against the Taliban, has agreed to permit
 I.N.C. forces and their military equipment to cross the Iranian border
 into southern Iraq. An I.N.C. official told me that the Treasury
 Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control gave the organization
 special approval to open a liaison office in Tehran. (American companies
 are forbidden under federal sanctions law to do business with Iran.)
 The office opened in April. "We did it with U.S. government money, and
 that's what convinced them in Tehran," the I.N.C. official said. "They
 took it as a sign from the United States of a common interest-getting
 rid of Saddam. The way to get to him is through Iran."

 Once inside Iraq, according to Chalabi's scenario, the I.N.C. would
 establish a firebase and announce the creation of a provisional Iraqi
 government, which the Bush Administration would quickly recognize.
 Nearly two-thirds of the Iraqi population are Shiites, and they are
 seen as potential allies in a political uprising. The United States
 would then begin an intense bombing campaign, as it did in Afghanistan,
 and airlift thousands of Special Forces troops into southern Iraq.
 At the same time, I.N.C. supporters in the north, in the areas under
 Kurdish control, would begin signalling that they were about to attack.
 If all went as planned, dissent would quickly break out inside the
 Iraqi military, and Saddam Hussein would be confronted with a dilemma:
 whether to send his élite forces south to engage the Americans or,
 for his own protection, keep all his forces nearby to guard against an
 invasion from the north.

 Chalabi's new plan also calls for the United States to provide funding
 for an I.N.C. mobile assault force of six battalions of armed Toyota
 four-by-fours, equipped with machine guns, recoilless cannons, and
 antitank missiles. "If you did that, there would be massive defections,"
 the I.N.C. official told me. The six battalions, he said, could stop
 an Iraqi counterattack by two armored divisions. Two preliminary target
 areas have been isolated, both near airbases that, once secured, could
 be used to fly in American Special Forces troops. The attack plan was
 worked out with the help of a retired four-star Army general, Wayne
 Downing, and a former C.I.A. officer, Duane (Dewey) Clarridge, who have
 served as unpaid consultants to the I.N.C. (Downing was appointed by
 President Bush in October to be the deputy national-security adviser
 for combatting terrorism.)

 Downing, who ran a Special Forces command during the Gulf War, was
 convinced that the I.N.C., with airpower and a small contingent of
 well-trained Special Forces, could do the job inside Iraq. He was privy
 to one of the most astonishing engagements of the Gulf War: In mid-
 February of 1991, a Delta Force troop of sixteen men on night patrol
 south of Al-Qaim, near the Syrian border in western Iraq, was overrun
 by a large enemy force, and the Iraqis wounded two Americans. The Delta
 troops, operating from heavily armed vehicles, counterattacked with
 grenade launchers and machine guns (a maneuver known as Final Protective
 Fire) and killed or wounded an estimated hundred and eighty Iraqis,
 with no further injury to themselves. One American veteran of the
 Gulf War told me, "In the west"-where Delta operated-"there was little
 opposition, and we had freedom of movement"; that is, the troops were
 operating on their own. "Downing loved it."

 America's success in routing the Taliban has improved Chalabi's standing
 with some elements of Washington's defense community. "They believe
 they have found the perfect model, and it works," a defense analyst
 said of the updated war plan. "The model is bombing, a modest insertion
 of Special Forces, plus an uprising." Similarly, Tim McCarthy, a former
 United Nations weapons inspector, acknowledged that "the one thing the
 I.N.C. has going for it is that, once someone puts their stake down,
 the Iraqis will have to go after them. Saddam will have to send his
 Hammurabi after them"-the Iraqi Army's élite armored-tank division.
 Once Saddam made his move, McCarthy said, his forces would be exposed
 to American air strikes, "and then they are toast."

 Many of the people who signed the 1998 open letter to Clinton urging
 American support for Iraqi insurgents are now in positions of authority
 in the Bush Administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld;
 his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz; and Douglas Feith, an Under-Secretary of
 Defense. Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State, was also a
 signatory. One of the drafters of the letter was Richard Perle, the
 longtime conservative foreign-policy adviser in Washington, who has
 turned the obscure Defense Policy Board, which he chairs, into a powerful
 platform for advancing policies dear to the Republican right. In the past
 few weeks, Perle and another I.N.C. supporter, James Woolsey, a former
 director of the C.I.A., have inspired a surge of articles and columns
 calling for the extension of the Afghan war into Iraq.

 The Pentagon officials, buttressed by Perle and Woolsey, are at odds
 with the State Department-specifically, with their fellow letter-signer
 Richard Armitage, who has now become, in private, an opponent of the
 revised Chalabi plan. "I've got to believe that Wolfowitz and Feith are
 angry" at Armitage, one friend of all three men told me. "They feel he's
 betrayed a fundamental conviction they shared."

 "September 11th changed the whole equation," said the former New York
 congressman Stephen Solarz, who helped Perle draft the 1998 letter.
 "Before then, an argument could be made that deterrence worked." In
 recent speeches and articles, Perle has dwelled on the potential threat
 from Iraq. Last month, at a meeting in Philadelphia of the Foreign
 Policy Research Institute, a conservative think tank, Perle said, "The
 question in my mind is: Do we wait for Saddam and hope for the best? Do
 we wait and hope he doesn't do what we know he is capable of, which is
 distributing weapons of mass destruction to anonymous terrorists, or do
 we take preëmptive action? . . . What is essential here is not to look
 at the opposition to Saddam as it is today, without any external support,
 without any realistic hope of removing that awful regime, but to look at
 what could be created."

 One of Armitage's supporters in the internal debate, a former high-level
 intelligence official, wondered scornfully if the Perle circle's
 enthusiasm for Chalabi's plan grew out of their unease about the first
 Bush Administration's decision in early 1991, when they were in power,
 not to seek Saddam's demise at the end of the Gulf War. "It's the revenge
 of the nerds," he said. Also, he said, "They won in Afghanistan when
 everybody said it wouldn't work, and it's got them in a euphoric mood of
 cockiness. They went against the established experts on the Middle East
 who said it would lead to fundamental insurrections in Saudi Arabia and
 elsewhere. Not so, and anyone who now preaches any approach of solving
 problems with diplomacy is scoffed at. They're on a roll."

 Armitage views the I.N.C.'s eagerness to confront Saddam, the former
 official told me, as ill-considered. "We have no idea what could
 go wrong in Iraq if the crazies took over that country," the former
 official said, referring to religious fundamentalists. "Better the devil
 we know than the one we don't." He described Armitage as confident that
 he could block the plan, and frustrated by the amount of time he has
 been forced to spend on the issue. "Dick says no way. He's going to
 win it." Otherwise, he added, "he knows it's going to be a political

 A senior Administration official depicted Chalabi as "totally charming,"
 but said that the Administration had no intention of allowing "a bunch
 of half-assed people to send foreigners into combat." Of Chalabi and
 his supporters in and out of government, the senior official said, "Who
 among them has ever smelled cordite? These are pissants who can't get
 the President's ear and have to blame someone else. We're not going to
 let them lead others down the garden path." The I.N.C., he added, is not
 the only Iraqi opposition group being funded by the Bush Administration,
 and not the only group capable of "working through Iran."

 Secretary of State Colin Powell, known to be skeptical of the I.N.C.,
 has "backed away from the infighting," a senior general explained, and
 left it to Armitage, his trusted colleague, "to stall them off four
 or five months. There's a lot of ways to squeeze Saddam without using
 military force." More focussed sanctions would be one logical step, but
 the Bush Administration last month agreed to delay for six months its
 insistence on "smart sanctions," which would enable the United Nations
 to crack down on "dual use" goods, which could be employed for military
 or civilian purposes, while allowing medicine, food, and other essentials
 to flow. The Iraqi regime now exports an estimated two million barrels
 of oil daily under the Oil for Food program. Major purchasers include
 ExxonMobil, Chevron, and other American companies, who routinely buy the
 oil through third parties. As many as eight hundred thousand barrels of
 that oil a day end up in the U.S. market.

 In recent weeks, Chalabi's revised war plan, augmented and modified by a
 Pentagon planning group authorized by Paul Wolfowitz, has made its way to
 the Joint Chiefs of Staff for evaluation. It has left some military men
 cold, and prompted a debate about the lessons learned from Afghanistan
 and how they can be applied to Saddam. "There's no question we can take
 him down," a former government official told me. "But what do you need to
 do it? The J.C.S. is feeling the pressure. These guys are being squeezed
 so hard."

 Some of the concerns were articulated by Robert Pape, a University of
 Chicago political scientist who has written widely on airpower. "The
 lesson from Afghanistan is less than meets the eye," Pape told me.
 "Airpower is becoming more effective, but the real lesson is that you
 need significant ground forces to make the strategy effective. The
 Taliban, which controlled fifty thousand troops, were thinly dispersed
 and never in total control of the country. We don't have an armed
 opposition already in Iraq like the Northern Alliance." A former senior
 State Department official depicted the I.N.C. proposal as "highly risky,
 because two things they can't control have to happen. There's got to be
 an uprising against Saddam, and our allies have to join us in country."
 A senior intelligence official similarly debunked the notion that what
 worked in Afghanistan would necessarily work in Iraq as equivalent to
 "taking the show from upstate New York to Broadway."

 The military's response has been cautious and bureaucratic. A former
 official told me that the Joint Chiefs ordered their staff to "come up
 with a counterproposal," which is now in the planning stages. An Air
 Force consultant said that the I.N.C. is not included in the Pentagon's
 planning, adding, "Everything is going to happen inside Iraq, and Chalabi
 is going to be on the outside." According to a senior Bush Administration
 official, two senior American diplomats were recently sent to northern
 Iraq to talk to Kurdish opposition leaders and "check out who's got go
 and who's got no go."

 Generals and admirals have been among the most outspoken critics of
 Chalabi's proposals. In his years of planning at CENTCOM, General Zinni
 concluded, according to a Clinton Administration official, that a prudent
 and successful invasion of Iraq would involve the commitment of two
 corps-at least six combat divisions, or approximately a hundred and fifty
 thousand soldiers-as well as the ability to fly bombing missions from
 nearby airfields. In an essay published last year in the United States
 Naval Institute Proceedings, Zinni, who was on the eve of retirement,
 wrote about what it would take to "drive a stake" through the heart of
 someone like Saddam:

 You must have the political will-and that means the will of the
 administration, the Congress, and the American people. All must be
 united in a desire for action. Instead, however, we try to get results
 on the cheap. There are congressmen today who want to fund the Iraqi
 Liberation Act, and let some silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London
 gin up an expedition. We'll equip a thousand fighters and arm them with
 ninety-seven million dollars' worth of AK-47s and insert them into Iraq.
 And what will we have? A Bay of Goats, most likely.

 One of the officials currently involved in the Pentagon's planning
 said that he, too, had doubts about the efficacy of an I.N.C. armed
 insurrection, even one backed up by American warplanes and Special
 Forces. "If you go to war and don't address the root political problem,
 why bother?" he asked. "All we're going to get is another tyrant in
 five years. If this is the war to end all jihads, it's got to have a
 broad-based political agenda behind it."

 One of Zinni's close aides told me, "Our question was 'What about the
 day after?' How do you deal with the long-term security aspects of Iraq?
 For example, do you take the Republican Guard" - the military unit most
 loyal to Saddam - "and disarm it? Or is it preferable to turn it from
 having a capability to protect Saddam to a capability to protect Iraq?
 You've got Kurds in the north, Arab Shia in the south, and the Baath
 Party in the middle, with great internal tribal divisions. There's
 potential for civil war. Layer on external opposition and you've got
 a potential for great instability. I'm a military planner and plan for
 the worst case. As bad as this guy is, a stable Iraq is better than

 When I asked James Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director, about these
 concerns, he said, "Iraq has its tribal factions and regional loyalties,
 but it also has a very sophisticated and intellectual infrastructure of
 highly educated people. There's no reason they couldn't establish a
 federalized-or loosely federalized-democracy."

 "The issue is not how nice it would be to get rid of Saddam," a former
 senior Defense Department official told me. "Everybody in the Middle
 East would be delighted to see him go. The problem is feasibility. We
 looked at all these plans and always came to the conclusion that the
 external opposition did not have the armed ability to deal with Saddam's
 police state."

 President Bush has not yet decided what to do about Iraq, according to
 the senior Administration official. Until he has, he said, the State
 Department will continue to give financial support to opposition groups,
 including the I.N.C. In a Washington Post interview earlier this fall,
 Condoleezza Rice used a football metaphor to indicate that all options
 remain open. "We will be calling audibles every time we come to the
 line," she told the columnist Jim Hoagland.

 There is evidence that Saddam Hussein is rattled by the war talk in
 Washington. "The Iraqis are scared to death," one intelligence source
 said. The intelligence community, according to a former official, has
 also received hints-however hard to credit-that the Iraqis might be
 willing to join in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Conciliatory messages
 were relayed through diplomatic channels in Canada, and eventually
 reached the White House.

 Inside the Administration, there is a general consensus on one issue,
 officials told me: there will be no further effort to revive the U.N.
 inspection regime in Iraq. The inspectors were withdrawn in late
 1998, after seven years of contentious and sometimes very successful
 inspections, and Iraq has refused since then to accept a new wave of
 inspectors. "I've been told that senior U.S. officials have little
 faith in the viability of the new inspection regime," one disarmament
 expert told me.

 There is every indication that the next few months, as the President
 struggles to reach a decision, will produce more, perhaps much more,
 of the same: continued American patrolling of the no-fly zones in the
 south and north of Iraq and occasional bombing of military targets.
 A retired flag officer described the approach as deterrence: "We have
 to make sure that Saddam knows that if he sticks his head up he'll get
 whacked." Error! Unknown switch argument.

 Copyright © CondéNet 2001. All rights reserved.

                                * * *

 EPIC Op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune

 San Diego Union-Tribune
 Thursday, December 13, 2001
 Enough damage to the Iraqi people

 I'm in the heart of Baghdad. I'm speaking with Bassel Hameed, who
 manages the Zahrat al-Kaleej Apartments. Like most of the older
 people here, he treats me with kindness and warm hospitality, despite
 my American nationality.

 "Americans are on top," he tells me. "They are first in technology.
 They are first in military. Everything belongs to them. But they
 should not think they are the only people in the world. We are also
 in the world."

 In the endless fight between the United States and Iraq, the Iraqi
 people are caught between a dictator and a democracy. As America's
 war in Afghanistan winds down, the focus is shifting to Iraq. President
 Bush has put Iraq on notice: let weapons inspectors back into the
 country, or face the consequences.

 The following day, an elated William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly
 Standard notorious for several "attack Iraq" letters, was reported to
 be confident a war would soon be waged against Iraq. "Now, Mr. Kristol
 says, there's no need for letters to the president," The New York Times

 Media speculation that Iraq will be hit next is rampant. It's as if U.S.
 pundits such as Kristol are forgetting the devastation that has already
 been wrought throughout that country. In 1991, during the six-week
 Persian Gulf War, the United States dropped more than 88,000 tons of
 explosives on a country two-thirds the size of Texas. This was more
 firepower than was used by all sides during World War II. It compelled
 Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. It also devastated the country.

 The Jordanian Red Crescent Society estimated 113,000 civilians killed
 in the 1991 conflict. And that was only the beginning.

 After Desert Storm, the international blockade was kept in place
 to force the Iraqi government to comply with U.N. Security Council
 dictates. It was madness to link the well-being of a civilian population,
 suffering in the immediate aftermath of a devastating bombing campaign,
 to the vagaries of a brutal dictator. It was, and is, an act of
 collective punishment. And it has been spectacularly unproductive at
 doing anything other than killing massive numbers of human beings.

 To some degree, sanctions are crumbling now. Smuggling is widespread,
 yet serves only the wealthiest 10 percent. Iraq's general population
 is left impoverished by low wages, hyperinflation and chronic
 unemployment. Iraq's once prosperous middle class has all but vanished.
 The sanctions have wrecked this economy.

 And if smuggling cannot take the place of normal economic activity,
 then neither can a handout. The U.N. "Oil-for-Food" program provides
 an average of $150 per person per year -- helping to make Iraq, by
 design, among the poorest nations in the world.

 The central, shattering truth is the death of hundreds of thousands
 of innocents, with thousands more dying every month. According to the
 United Nations, more children have died in Iraq due to the sanctions
 than all U.S. combat deaths during all the wars of the 20th century.

 According to U.N. agencies and relief organizations in Iraq --
 organizations such as UNICEF and the International Committee of the
 Red Cross -- sanctions have been a major factor in the estimated
 500,000 deaths among children under the age of 5 between 1991 and
 1998. That's 125 World Trade Centers, full of babies and toddlers,
 crashing to the ground.

 Iraqis have suffered enough. If the United States wages another war
 against Iraq, more will suffer, proving Bassel's point that Americans
 "think they are the only people in the world." Let's show that we're
 better than that.

 Kysia serves on the board of directors for the Education for Peace in
 Iraq Center ( and is in Iraq as part of a peace
 delegation. He can be reached at

 Copyright 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

 TAKE ACTION. Write a Letter to the Editor in support of Ramzi's eloquent
 appeal for an end to the siege and war against Iraq. Letters should be
 sent in c/o Letters Editor, The San Diego Union-Tribune, PO Box 120191,
 San Diego, CA, 92112-0191, or fax (619) 293-1440, or

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
CASI's website - - includes an archive of all postings.

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]