Chalabi calls for security to be handed over to Iraqis after Najaf outrage

AFP ^ | August 29, 2003

[Shermy]

BAGHDAD (AFP) - A member of Iraq's US-appointed Governing Council called on Friday for internal security to be handed over to Iraqis following the killing of top Shiite leader Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim in a devastating car bombing in the holy city of Najaf.

Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Pentagon -backed Iraqi National Congress (INC), blamed remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and supporters of the al-Qaeda terror network for the attack, which came a little over a week after another deadly bombing wrecked the UN headquarters in Baghdad.

"This is not an inter-Shiite affair," Chalabi told AFP, flatly rejecting the suggestion that the attack could have been triggered by rivalries over the mantle of leadership of Iraq's majority Shiite community.

"The attack was against the holy shrine," he said in a reference to the mausoleum of Imam Ali, outside of which the bombing that claimed at least 82 lives occurred.

For a Shiite to carry out such an action "would be like a Catholic blowing up the Pope at St. Peter's," said Chalabi, himself a Shiite, albeit a secular one.

Chalabi said the answer to atrocities such as Friday's was for an Iraqi force to take over internal security duties while US-led coalition troops would defend Iraq's borders.

Such a force could be set up "within six weeks" if the coalition can be "persuaded" to approve the plan, Chalabi said.

"It's not a matter of firepower, but of intelligence (on potential threats). We know what's going on," the INC chief said in explaining why an Iraqi security force would be more successful than up to 150,000 mostly American troops deployed in the country.

"Fundamentalists and al-Qaeda supporters are working hand in glove with remnants of the Saddam regime" to sow chaos in Iraq, Chalabi charged.

Remnants of the ousted regime must be incarcerated in the thousands and "de-Baathification" must be stepped up, he said.

Hakim's death came five days after the attempted assassination in Najaf of Grand Ayatollah Seyed Mohammad Said al-Hakim, his uncle and one of the top Shiite religious authorities. The grand ayatollah escaped but three people were killed in that attack.

Chalabi said he met both men in Najaf on Wednesday and they had expressed concern that "the Baathists" were planning an attack in the Shiite holy city.

Asked if he himself felt threatened, Chalabi, who was for many years Saddam's most high-profile opponent, said: "We are all threatened ... This is a war with the Baathists."

[Shermy]

Chalabi makes an interesting implicit point that this time it might not be IRan. Still, I'd like to know how close to the shrine the bomb actually was.

[Dog]

Shermy it was very close to the shrine. It damaged it bad.

[Trampled by Lambs]

I say do it. Let the Iraqis handle their own security. It should make our troops safer and would be an important first step toward getting us the hell out of there. Also, we could then concentrate on getting the bastards coming across the borders trying to disrupt everything.

[funkywbr]

If they KNOW what's going on then how did the bombing happen?

And if they are so concerned about internal security AND know what's going on then how come they are NOT assisting US?

When the Iraqis dont want to help themselves then I say screw em and here, have your chithole back.

[Hans]

Chalabi is dead on.
The US State Department has obstructed the use of
Iraq exiles at every turn, turn the whole country over to Chalabi and his people.

[mr.pink]

Chalabi is in way over his head. He should probably leave before he's whacked.

[funkywbr]

ARABS with WOMD are a scary proposition. I hope it's US and not Israel that takes out the Iranian Nuke facility soon.

[aynrandfreak]

Isn't Najaf the city where mobs had stopped our troops from moving towards the main mosque while we were driving to Baghdad?

[mewzilla]

Nah.

[swarthyguy]

Bump. State sidelined Chalabi and the Pentagon's plans basically.

[CO_dreamer]

Then again, Chalabi just lost one of the primary critics to secular govt in Iraq. Yes, it could have been Saddam. Or, it could have been rival Shiites or Sunnis. Then again....

[Moose4]

Sounds to me like he's looking for us to give him the reins and let him gallop with it. Anytime I see somebody talking about rounding up people in their thousands, I get nervous. Is this guy trustworthy enough to not turn the place into another dictatorship--are we enabling another Shah here?

And while I understand him wanting the Iraqis to handle their own security, I have to wonder...we have the most heavily armed, capable military force in the history of the world there now, and he thinks a ragtag bunch of his locals can do better?

}:-)4

[Shermy]

Isn't Najaf the city where mobs had stopped our troops from moving towards the main mosque while we were driving to Baghdad?

It wasn't in the way of Baghdad. The protestors said OK to occupation of the city, just not near the shrine.

[Righty1]

But is our fault for not secutig the sight? Arabs are impossible. They deserve the french.

[swarthyguy]

Death toll upto 125 now. Many Iranian pilgrims among the fatalities and injured.

Now, would nutty Sunnis combined with Baathists or antiUS shias do something like this?

Shades of the Sunni on Shia massacres and bombings in Pakistan.

[Dolphy]

Chalabi said the answer to atrocities such as Friday's was for an Iraqi force to take over internal security duties while US-led coalition troops would defend Iraq's borders.

He may have a point but then again he might just get a civil war. If the Iraqis he claims to be in the know cannot team up with the soldiers how are we to believe that they will do better on their own. The UN seemed to do it Chalabi's way with similar results.