Vodkapundit - A Fisking

A Fisking

Posted by Stephen Green · 13 April 2004

Ladies and gentlemen, John Kerry:

To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.

I'm confused. There hasn't been a regime change in Iraq? Saddam is in a cage somewhere, the Sunni Ba'ath Remnant has mostly given way to Shia terrorists, Sunni dead-enders, and a remarkably responsible (and quite autonomous) Kurdish region. Well, them and to CENTCOM.

Or did Kerry mean we have yet to do something more than change the regime? In that case, there's the increasingly reliable electrical supply, the increase in Iraqi oil output, ongoing infrastructure improvements, the end of systematic torture and rape, new schools, the return of water to the Marsh Arabs marshes, etc.

Or did Kerry mean -- as he explicitly said -- that "any war" must have goals beyond regime change? Apparently, Mr. Kerry has never heard of punitive expeditions. Sometimes, the best a nation can do is go in, kick some butt, teach the needed hard lesson, then go home. Now, I hope we don't get to the point where we have to give up on Reconstruction, and limit the goal of the Iraq War to a mere punishment and example-setting. But even if that's all we end up accomplishing, it will still have been worth it.

But to argue, as Kerry does, that such things never have and never will work, is to ignore an awful lot of history. Punitive expeditions -- such as the response to the Boxer Rebellion, the 1986 air raid on Libya, the Grenada invasion, etc. -- have a long history of success.

That was an awful lot of rebuttal for an opening paragraph, I know. But it's rare for a Presidential candidate to demonstrate so much ignorance, of both history and clear writing, in such a small space.

So let's continue:

In the past week the situation in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed.

Unless, of course, that American is Kerry's biggest (literally and figuratively) supporter, Ted Kennedy. Kennedy has already called Iraq "Bush's Vietnam," which is less of an accurate description than it is an attempt at self-fulfilling prophecy. This isn't another Vietnam unless we become convinced that we can't win -- and Kennedy is trying to convince us. Clearly, not all Americans want us to succeed. What a shame it is that one of them is so close to Team Kerry.

The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

Does this imply that Kerry will soon stop taking advice from a certain Scotch-scented blowhard? If so, then kudos to Kerry -- and he ought to tell the Distinguished Driver from Massachusetts to shut up already, if Kerry wants a shot at winning next Fall.

But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them.

Unless, of course, the military commander is named Westmoreland. After all, this isn't Vietnam.

Progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. Yet the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq. We need a political strategy that will work.

If rebuilding a war-ravaged nation from scratch and attempting to give a trampled people a taste of constitutional republicanism isn't a "political strategy that will work," then just what does Kerry think will?

Fact is, we might fail in our attempt to create the Arab world's first decent nation. Would President Kerry be ready for that, since Candidate Kerry has already declared that anything less is a total failure?

Over the past year the Bush administration has advanced several plans for a transition to democratic rule in Iraq. Each of those plans, after proving to be unworkable, was abandoned.

And in the last 200 years, France has had three Empires and five Republics -- yet Kerry considers that nation a worthy role model. Political progress comes in fits and starts; ask any regretful Nader 2000 voter.

The administration has set a date (June 30) for returning authority to an Iraqi entity to run the country, but there is no agreement with the Iraqis on how it will be constituted to make it representative enough to have popular legitimacy.

And to think we fought and won out Revolution without first getting permission, much less a written Constitution. As a further outrage, imagine that the Kurds (driven from their homes by the Sunnis), and the Shias (drained out of their swamps by the Sunnis), and the Sunnis themselves (who would reallt like to get back to kicking around the Kurds and draining out the Shias) don't yet get along!

Kerry has already stated that under his Administration, our military will stay, in whatever numbers they request, to try and keep the peace for as long as needed. As long as needed for what? Why, to give the Sunnis and Shias and Kurds a chance to learn to live together.

If anyone can tell me how that differs from the current Administration, I'll print this fisking out on some really heavy stock paper, and eat it.

Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition.

And we were going to get France and Germany on board how? There was no popular support in those countries, and less political support. Sorry, Mr. Kerry -- you might be sauve enough to marry a rich heiress, but she still made you sign a pre-nup. So you think you're going to seduce 145 million overweight Germans and stinky Frenchies into getting off their doles and into a mess like the Middle East? Bill Clinton could barely get them to sign on to Oslo, and that didn't involve putting any troops on the ground.

We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility. And we are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn't done.

And millions more who appreciate what the Bush Administration has done. And what you, Mr. Kerry, wouldn't have done. Or did your Yes vote on the Use of Force resolution actually mean Yes this time?

In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep.

That's right: One President Kerry is greater than 1,000 years of mutual hostility -- which three years of President Bush created.

This man's knowledge of basic history is incredibly low, even grading on the generous Presidential Candidate Curve. I remember Candidate GWB talking foreign policy during the 2000 race, and all I could think was, "Well, at least he'll have Colin Powell at his ear."

John Kerry has Ted Kennedy.

The United States can bolster Brahimi's limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders.

In other words, John Kerry would give veto power over any plan, no matter how reasonable, to any leading Shia cleric, no matter how unreasonable. How do you spell "nuance?" S-T-U-P-I-D.

Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government.

This is the same United Nations which ran from Iraq at the first sign of trouble last summer. The same UN which feathered its nest with Iraqi petrodollars. The same UN which wouldn't support its own resolutions.

If we end up needing to bring in the UN as a bit of cover, to lend "legitimacy" to our actions, then by all means, let's do so. But to make that corrupt body a "full partner" is to destroy any chance we have at building a decent Iraq.

We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.

Whose boots, Mr. Kerry, would provide a climate of security? The same French or Danish boots, which ignored ethnic slaughter just a few miles down the road in Bosnia? Spanish boots, which said they'd run home after a single attack? German boots, which we fought two world wars against, exactly so they wouldn't go marching all over the world?

We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers.

We might also urge rabbits to start attacking wolves -- we'd have about the same luck, and with about the same effect.

NATO armies -- other than the Anglo-American ones -- have atrophied to the point where they're almost useless for anything more than simple peacekeeping. They can barely keep themselves trained and armed, much less try to train and arm new recruits in an environment like postwar Iraq.

It doesn't matter that the Europeans hate Bush and love Kerry. It doesn't matter which man is President. The sad truth is, NATO won't go, because they can't go -- not without massive American financial and material support. So much for burden-sharing, no matter how you slice it.

The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk.

See my last point. NATO is just no damn good at fighting anymore.

That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people.

When soldiers show up wearing the Stars and Stripes on their shoulders, people know what to expect. And depending on who they are, they will feel either relief or fear. What do people feel when they see UN white helmets, Mr. Kerry? A sense of "hope and optimism?"

Not on this planet.

The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen -- John Kerry's view of foreign relations, wrapped up in a single sentence written by the man himself. And what is that view? Other people get to make the decisions, and Americans get to do the bleeding.

Are we sure Kerry is gunning for W's job, and not for Kofi Annan's?

Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone. The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal. The challenges are significant and the costs are high. But the stakes are too great to lose the support of the American people.

In that case, Kerry should tell every Democrat but Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and Sam Nunn to just shut up about Iraq until, one way or another, we're finished there.

Whether you agree or not, Bush has been crystal clear about what we're doing in Iraq -- even if he wasn't completely honest in his justification for getting us there in the first place. If there's confusion in the American people, it's been sown by Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, and, yes, by John Kerry.

This morning, as we sit down to read newspapers in the comfort of our homes or offices, we have an obligation to think of our fighting men and women in Iraq who awake each morning to a shooting gallery in which it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and the death of every innocent creates more enemies.

If they're having trouble telling friend from foe now, just wait until the UN is in charge of the place. And if you think too many innocents are dying now, wait until President Kerry won't let our boys shoot back without authorization first from Chirac, Schroeder, and Annan.

We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to use absolutely every tool we can muster to help them succeed in their mission without exposing them to unnecessary risk. That is not a partisan proposal. It is a matter of national honor and trust.

Kerry is exactly right on that last point. And since trust and our national honor are at stake, I can't vote for a man who would turn such precious assets of ours over to the United Nations.

Comments

you're either willfully obtuse, or your reading comprehension doesn't exceed that of a 6th grader.

To paraphrase, it's rare for a supposed fisker to demonstrate so much ignorance, of both history and clear writing, in such a long rebuttal.

btw, 'overweight Germans'.. hahaha..

Posted by: Sander at April 13, 2004 05:47 AM

Sander: What exactly was incorrect in the fisking? That NATO armies are now only fit for the parade ground? That the UN is a corrupt body? That Mr. Kerry stated a lot of wishes and no concrete proposals? He wants to sit in the big chair at the nice wooden desk. We need to know what he would do different. So far, I haven't heard anything, and Mr. Green is saying the same thing.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at April 13, 2004 06:12 AM

yes, yes and no.

NATO is currently patrolling the sky of former Sovjet states, since they have no army capable of the task of their own.
NATO is a mostly a defensive organization, which is why it sent support troops to Turkey last year in case of a missile attack from Iraq.
NATO's troops consist of the individual members' troops, so the supposed atrophy is that of its members. Anyway, NATO, is not the US' lackey, so disagreements may persist.

The attacks on the UN make absolutely no sense. The UN is as the name implies an organization of nations. Its faults lie almost completely with the member states, not the organization itself.
I remember long ago (1.5 years) when the UN was a quite well respected body (remember when Bush came into office and decided to pay all its debts to the UN?), but then the imminent invasion of Iraq came and suddenly all things bad that came out of the UN were inherent problems and proof that the UN sucked.

Yes, this op-ed mostly describes an attitude change, in stead of concrete actions that would be taken, but as far as I understand, that's exactly what most of the world wants.

The points you bring up are debatable, but the chosen style and rhetoric of Mr. Green hints at an underlying hatred for all things international. It's not a fisking, it's repeating to yourself the same old mantra, with some Kerry op-ed in between.

Posted by: Sander at April 13, 2004 06:43 AM

This is not the fisking of an op-ed writer, but of someone who aspires to take over the job of running the show.

Thus, John Kerry must be held to an exacting standard - he has not been living under a rock, and has no excuse whatsoever for not having a detailed, comprehensive plan that explains not just what he wants to achieve in Iraq, but how he plans to achieve it. And the how has got to be better than "get our international allies involved", when there is overwhelming history and evidence that this is not likely to happen short of turning over half of Iraqi oil assets to Totalfinaelf as part of the bargain.

The fisking is bang on.

Posted by: Kate at April 13, 2004 06:53 AM

"When soldiers show up wearing the Stars and Stripes on their shoulders, people know what to expect. And depending on who they are, they will feel either relief or fear."

How many feel relief in Iraq right now when seeing a soldier with Stars and Stripes on their shoulders? Apart from fellow US soldiers and other foreigners?
I though you were building a democracy for the Iraqi people. It's a long time I have seen such a f...ed up way of nation-building.

McCain had a useful idea: Cancel the Pentagon's pet projects one by one and use the money to cover any additional costs of the Iraq mission. That would give the top Pentagon an incentive to think at least once seriously about what they are doing/going to do in Iraq.

Bremer is either highly overrated or too often overruled by Washington. He's announced by now a string of orders with very bad consequences.

How could the current situation get even worse? When all the Shia and Sunni people in the Iraqi Governing Council march out of the body, leaving only the Kurds, who have no problems with the US, behind. Then you are really back at square one.

Better ask Rummy whether he already thought about that before he gives the orders for the next offensive against the militants.

Posted by: The Old European at April 13, 2004 07:10 AM

It's amazing how many people still dance to the tune of the nightly news. Are you that easily manipulated? They show a few images and spin the story a new way and you forget everything that has happened up to that point in time? That's about the only explanation for the "failure in Iraq" crowd. Good doggies. Now, sit, stay.

Yes, the vast majority of the country supports us. Yes, the vast majority of the country is begging us to stay. Yes, the quality of life is better under the US than under Saddam.

And the UN? Seriously? After you're done reading about the obscenely corrupt "oil-for-food" program, you can read about how they cut and run from Iraq after their little compound was bombed a few months into the war. We didn't throw them out, they ran away like cowards.

But go ahead and stick to your cliches, it's so much easier than thinking.

Posted by: Mike M at April 13, 2004 07:35 AM

Kate,

yes, he does have an excuse: it is an op-ed. Detailed plans go in detailed plans, not op-eds. But the willingness to listen to allies and military commanders instead of the stay the course, everything is fine, Shinseki you're fired - attitude is a breath of fresh air.

That aside, for you the bottom line is:

I don't care how bad the occupation goes, as long as we get the oil?

Posted by: Sander at April 13, 2004 07:40 AM

Mike M,

of course not. Trouble was brewing for quite some time and the call for international support and more troops was present before this deepening of mess started.

Yes, I've read about the oil-for-food scandal (although most of it comes from conservative op-eds) and I expect a full investigation into the matter. If it pans out, heads should roll and action should be taken. But this is exactly what I meant; you see only proof of the rottenness of the UN, but when was the last time you said we should ignore the US government, because of a scandal?

But go ahead and stick to your cliches, it's so much easier than thinking.

Posted by: Sander at April 13, 2004 07:48 AM

Sander:

Cheap shot. I don't give a damn about the oil, and I'm sure Kate doesn't either.

This was about keeping Iraq from being an ammo dump for international terrorists. And if in 5 years Iraq is a civilized country that hates us but has too much at stake to do anything to harm us, that's better than the status quo ante.

Nice chickenshit e-mail addy, by the way. But I suppose if you're going to formulate arguments with your midbrain ("blood for oil -- bwaaawk!") you probably need a certain degree of anonymity, no?

Posted by: DrSteve at April 13, 2004 07:49 AM

Dr Steve,

I didn't enter a valid address, because I don't have an e-mail for these purposes (I separate business from pleasure from vitriol). If you desire so, I'll get one.

But anyway, that's essentially what Kate said. Not that the invasion was because of the oil, but now that we have, we'll as sure as hell make sure the French don't get any.

Posted by: Sander at April 13, 2004 07:56 AM

ok, I have to do some work now. Until we meet again...

Posted by: Sander at April 13, 2004 08:04 AM

Brilliant comeback Sander. If you're so big on the UN, how about listing it's successes in military operations and large scale humanitarian administration?

I don't suggest ignoring the UN because of merely a scandal, I suggest it because they have already failed in Iraq and abandoned its people after raping them in collusion with their oppressor.

Posted by: Mike M at April 13, 2004 08:10 AM

Sander, you complain about the cost, but you want to give away returns to the underserving. I'm fine with the UN providing some services, but the idea of giving them any authority is absurd. Let them do what they may be good at, but don't give them any power they haven't earned (by merit and investment). They could help with elections, but shouldn't be involved in any policy decisions other than giving advice (in a proper, private forum).

They missed the chance to make the big risks, haven't contributed the big costs, aren't commited to the positive results we want, and subject the process to many differnet agendas. If they are to get involved, they need to make proposals which demonstrate their capabilities accurately and need to contribute to the past costs in addition to future contributions.

Posted by: aaron at April 13, 2004 08:30 AM

A likely excuse, not having a valid e-mail address. I got my Hotmail address for FREE.

This may come as a shock to you, Sander, but it's not all about the oiiiillll!! If we wanted only that, all we had to do was to lift the sanctions and pay standard prices for clean-burning, high-quality Iraqi crude. But when you have a dictator who has consistently sought weapons of mass destruction, lied to us countless times, harbored terrorist leaders, and bankrolled suicide bombers, we had no choice but to take him down.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome. Can you explain how the UN, which lost all credibility with the Iraqis by tucking its tail between its legs and retreating when their headquarters got bombed, will do any better than the US?

Posted by: Bloodthirsty Warmonger at April 13, 2004 08:47 AM

I'm curious about the last successful UN peacekeeping operation:

Cambodia? Where Hun Sen's "election" was undertaken with incredible fraud? Where various UN "peacekeeping" units ran brothels?

Kosovo? Ooops. UN didn't approve that one.

Bosnia? Tell the residents of Srbenica.

Cyprus? I suppose, if you count the creation of independent states north and south of the green line as "success."

Lebanon? BEFORE the Israelis went in? Oh, well, they were only rocketing JOOOOOSSS.

[snap!] Oh, RWANDA! And Congo!! Of course, of course....

The UN does a great deal of good---so long as it's run by smaller agencies. But peacekeeping operations?

But, of course, as Sander says, it's really all the fault of the member states. Let the UN ACTUALLY run things (like food-for-oil), and all will be well.....

Posted by: Dean at April 13, 2004 08:51 AM

I agree with Aaron. Let the UN do what they are good at. I just don't know what that is, but I'm sure that the UN is good at SOMETHING, right? Right?

Posted by: Chris at April 13, 2004 10:50 AM

Let them debate.

Maybe monitor environmental issues, conduct surveys, and/or take census?

Posted by: aaron at April 13, 2004 12:02 PM

Mike M,

thanks for the compliment. Well, first of all, for all its faults the UN is the best we had for 50 years. In my reply to Dean a bit lower I'll try and argue where things go wrong and compare it to the alternatives.

aaron,

The problems currently in Iraq stems mostly from anti-Americanism. Now, transfering authority to the UN or taking up shared responsibility may not solve everything, but would be a clear signal to the Iraqi's that the entire world is there to keep the peace and enable a transfer to Iraqi sovereignty, in stead of the currently much held view of an oppressive occupation.

Regarding not giving advice, in my honest opinion, any advice that differs from what Bremer has was told in the past should be an improvement (look it up).
Regarding their ability: fine, open up a dialog with the UN and quit snubbing them.

Bloodthirsty Warmonger,

Regarding my e-mail: read my post again. Sheesh.

Regarding my response to kate: read my post again. Sheesh.

Regarding the UN 'withdrawal': can you tell the difference between a civilian and a military presence?

Dean,

I'm very willing to start a discussion about the merits and faults of the UN. The UN (or broader the international community) was definitely at fault in Rwanda. As much has been admitted by most world leaders. If anything, more international cooperation and surveillance was needed to stop genocides like that.

The post-Yugoslavian crisis was impossible to solve through the UN because of a Russian veto. That's why NATO took on the job. Does this negatively reflect on the UN? Definitely, but its an inherent problem of the UN Security Council. We could either scrap the veto option and replace it with a relative voting power system or accept the fact that the will of the majority of the council can be blocked by a single member (for example also Israel and maybe Iraq, we'll never know). I would favor the first, but in any event, it's a difficult problem.

Lebanon is another example of the lack of alternatives. After Israel went in it didn't get any better, resulting in the end in a unilateral withdrawal.

I don't know much about the Cambodian situation, but I'm sury someone here can enlighten me. If not, I'll have to do some reading today.

So sure, there are many problems with the UN, but if Iraq has taught us anything, it's that the US cannot be everywhere at once. So I ask all of you, what's your alternative?

Chris,

right.

Posted by: Sander at April 13, 2004 12:07 PM

new and valid 'e-mail addy'

Posted by: Sander at April 13, 2004 12:26 PM

Sander, that 'relative power' plan would amount to the US having 51% of the votes in the 'reformed' UN, because it's the US that can actually send enough troops to do the job to wherever they're needed and keep them there until the job is done. Nobody else on the planet can do that- the Brits need US logistic support to deploy more than 10k troops more than a few hundred miles from the UK, and they're second only to the US. The rest of the countries on this planet are worse.

The UN is a good idea in concept. We need something to do what the UN was intended to do. But what the UN does _now_ has little relation to that, and it's doing a piss-poor job of it.

Posted by: rosignol at April 13, 2004 01:22 PM

I don't see what meaningful role the UN can play in conflicts of this nature. I wish that wasn't the case. We need an organization like the UN, at least like what it was intended to do (as rosignol says). But it is unable to enforce its own resolutions, it is unable to stop genocide, it is unable to prevent the proliferation of WMDs, its role in Oil For Food was corrupt... I agree that the structure of the Security Council needs to be changed, but without the US holding veto power, where would Israel be?

Posted by: chris at April 13, 2004 04:28 PM

anti-Americanism will always exists on some level, especially Arab/Muslim culture. But most of the reaction is from isolationists, not specifically anti-americanism. Its face might just look like anti-americanism in today's light.

Posted by: aaron at April 13, 2004 04:28 PM

Isolationists and power grubbers.

Posted by: aaron at April 13, 2004 04:33 PM

If you really want to see some rabid Bush-haters in action (Not that you can't just turn on your TV) check out the comments posted about Kerry's op-ed on Kerry's campaign blog....looks like 8-10 different folks have posted upwards of 150 comments - this has gotten them really het up

Posted by: HoosierDave at April 13, 2004 06:13 PM

--I remember long ago (1.5 years) when the UN was a quite well respected body --

Maybe in your circle.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 13, 2004 06:29 PM

-- agree with Aaron. Let the UN do what they are good at. I just don't know what that is, but I'm sure that the UN is good at SOMETHING, right? Right?--

Brothels, fraud, nepotism, spending my money, parking in no-parking zones, bribery, the usual.

Getting former electricity-exporting Kosovo up and running w/24/7 electricity 7 years after taking over? No way.

Yes, let's hand Iraq over.

As to anti-Americanism, well, Sunnis - out of power and money, I can see why they'd like power back. Certain whack-job Shi'ites? Sponsored by the black turbans of Iran to the tune of $80m +++. 23 years after our embassy, we're finally responding.

Majority, just want to live don't care who wins.

Kind of like our own Revolution, 1/3 Royalists, 1/3 Independence, 1/3 don't care who just leave me alone.

We don't have to be "everywhere" just enough places to get the message out.

Even China's 100 m (?) army can't go anywhere yet because it doesn't have a navy to transport.

Once you realize, Sander, that "the world" will never "like" us, we're not supposed to be here, this experiment was never supposed to work as magnificently as it has and every day we exist it reminds them their grand EUtopian "isms" have failed, it's easier to work w/said world when we can and go our own way when we can't.

That's the way it is. Vodka's right, we have to get over wanting to be liked.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 13, 2004 06:46 PM

Well, well, well, via Tim Blair, including frogistan comment:

Informed sources in London have revealed that a decision to activate "Shi'i resistance" in Iraq was made at a conference held in the British capital, London, in mid-March 2004. Representatives of major Islamic movements attended the conference, in addition to some dignitaries close to Shi'i leader Muqtada al-Sadr.

(See how easy it is to get things moving when France isn't involved?)

A reliable Shi'i source said that the conference included the prominent Islamic movements in Europe; representatives of the Islamic movement in Iraq with both its Shi'i and Sunni parts, especially a representative of the young Imam Muqtada al-Sadr; a representative of the international organization of Hezbollah; and representatives of other Islamic organizations from the Middle East region.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 13, 2004 07:55 PM