Secret Surrender Talks Ongoing?
Vol: 18 Issue: 27 Thursday, March 27, 2003
There are credible reports emerging of ‘serious dialogue’ between Washington and elements of Saddam’s leadership eager to save themselves from rapidly advancing annihilation.
Those reports said a channel has been opened during the past four days and for the first time Washington is relaying messages on its terms for a surrender.
Officials said Washington assured senior members of the Iraqi regime that they would be spared if they cooperated with the United States. In a gesture to demonstrate its sincerity, the United States allowed Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri to leave the country and head for Cairo to discuss terms of surrender with Egyptian resident Hosni Mubarak.
Mubarak, the Middle East’s answer to Jacques Chirac, has asked to play a major role in these contacts.
In exchange, say the source, the White House has demanded proof of the Iraqis that they control the situation on the ground. The first demand is that no nonconventional weapons or medium-range missiles be used in any attack. The second demand is that Iraqi forces end any sabotage operations against oil wells and civilian infrastructure, such as bridges.
So far, the Iraqi leaders appear to have fulfilled most of these demands.
But this does not mean that Iraq has stopped fighting. On the contrary, our information indicates that U.S. intelligence expects what remains of the Iraqi regime to put up stiff resistance until a surrender agreement has been reached. And Saddam has been removed.
Some days, connecting the dots means jumping all over the place in order to draw the Big Picture. Today is one of those days, so excuse me if I seem to ramble.
Most of the mainstream press coverage continues to focus on the negatives, but in point of fact, the war against Saddam has so far surpassed expectations, in military terms.
Whether or not that is a consequence of this allegedly ‘secret’ dialogue will eventually emerge as the fog of war clears. For now, all we can confirm is that the so-called ‘setbacks’ are only being reported by those not in theatre. The war correspondents embedded with the troops report cutting through the opposition like a hot knife through butter.
Meanwhile, America’s chief embarrassment told a South African newspaper that “America will leave Iraq with its tail between it’s legs.” That’s Scott Ritter’s assessment, and he is willing to share it with anyone who will listen.
Ritter told South Africa’s IOL that, “We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable,” he said.
“Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost,” Ritter added.
It is hard to say whether Ritter has completely lost his mind, but it occurs to me that while Ritter himself is totally discredited, the sentiments he expresses are reflected throughout the mainstream media.
It is mind-boggling when you think about it, but it provides tremendous insight into the power of the propagandist to shape thoughts.
The Iraq regime has proved itself to be exactly as advertised; reports of Iraqi atrocities are not propaganda, but are attested to by every single eyewitness account, including embedded journalists who have no particular love for the administration.
Iraqi troops are reportedly pressing children into service, herding civilians ahead of them as they fire on coalition forces from behind, shooting their own civilians, and hiding weapons in hospitals.
But today’s New York Times analysis was all about military setbacks and civilian casualties. The war is less than a week old and the Times argues that the administration’s strategy has failed.
As we discussed yesterday, the mainstream press immediately reported as fact that coalition missiles slammed into a marketplace killing some 15 Iraqi civilians.
In this morning’s briefing, Centcom said it wasn’t ours. General Brooks said that it was most probably an Iraqi missile, fired ballistically rather than using radar guidance. Centcom believes the attack was deliberate, and Iraq’s record so far leave little reason to doubt it.
But there are millions of people who do. Thanks to the public willingness to accept strong delusion as fact as long as it reinforces what they wanted to believe in the first place.
And despite the unquestioned evidence of Saddam’s brutality, there has been no change in the public position taken by the so-called ‘Axis of Weasels’ who continue to oppose efforts to destroy a regime the likes of which hasn’t scarred the planet since Hitler or Stalin.
France, Germany and Russia said the United States was taking ‘illegal action’ by attacking Iraq and seeking to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
French President Jacques Chirac, in a televised speech, criticized the United States for launching the attack.
France regrets this action taken without the approval of the United Nations, Chirac said. No matter how long this conflict lasts, it will have serious consequences for the future.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iraq posed no threat or danger to the United States. He called the war a big political error that disregarded international law and world opinion.
So here is how Saddam Hussein fits into the Big Picture. By the time the smoke has cleared, he will have found out who Allah REALLY is, but not before reshaping global alliances precisely along the lines predicted by the prophets for the last days.
The Washington Post quoted an unnamed administration official concerning the future of the Atlantic alliance.
“Beyond the U.N., how do you put the transatlantic relationship back into shape?” asked one official. “How do you deal with the central powers, the French and the Germans? . . . What are you trying to accomplish?
“We’re thinking about all this stuff, thinking about what the agenda is for the 21st century,” the official said, noting that it is important that you “don’t let tactics lead you. That’s another way of saying, “Don’t let your anger lead you.’ ” But it is clear the Bush administration remains very angry at France.
“We have not attacked them,” the official said of the failed effort to win U.N. support for the war. “We have gone after Iraq for reasons that we’ve stated. They [the French] have gone after us; that’s the difference. They’ve made this about us, and that’s the real problem.”
It’s also the real story behind the war.