Extraordinary interview with pro-resistance Iraqi
“Political process to the benefit of al
Interview conducted by Willi Langthaler
-- - Abduljabbar al Kubaysi, influential political
leader of the Iraqi resistance and secretary-general of the
Iraqi Patriotic Alliance (IPA) elaborates on the new
situation evolving in Iraq
Q: In the last period the European media when
touching Iraq have been speaking only on a sectarian civil
war. What is really happening?
Actually the US occupiers as well as the government imposed
by them are pushing for this sectarian civil war. Also the
Iranians have interest in this as they are looking for a
federation in the South as well. Their attempt is to make
the Sunni, the Christians, the Mandeans leave to have a
purely Shiite zone. Under the conditions of war this
sectarian drive has an immediate effect.
The US uses this as an argument to stay in Iraq as they
claim that they would be needed to settle this strife.
There is, however, so much evidence that the intelligence
services of the US, of the Iraqi as well as of the Iranian
government are the real source of the violence. They plant
bombs or pack them into cars which are then being exploded
by remote control or by helicopter in both Shiite and Sunni
areas deliberately killing civilians not involved in
politics. Thus, they try to spark the sectarian conflict.
In the beginning, the media used to check on the site of the
blast and often eye witnesses contradicted the official
version that a person exploded himself. Now they use to
cordon off the area and impede questions to the locals. They
want to have the news spread that militants did the massacre
while it was governing forces or the US who planted
explosive loads. In most of the cases there is no person
involved killing himself. In these cases you can be sure
that the ruling coalition is involved.
For example, they changed the name of an important road in
the Al Adhamiye district in Baghdad from a Sunni religious
figure to a Shiite one during the night. It was the Shiite
community of al Adhamiye itself to change it back to the
original name. Then they came again with their Hummers…
But actually they did not success succeed in creating the
rift between Sunnis and Shiites. Yes, in officials politics
there is. The Sunni Islamic Party, which is with the
Americans, and the Shiite block, which is with Iran and the
US, litigate along such lines, but they did not succeed in
pushing the ordinary people to go with them. Here and there,
there might be some minor conflicts but in substance the
broad masses on both sides insist that they are Iraqis
regardless of their confession.
Look to Najaf and see the positions of the Arab Shiite
Ayatollahs who continue to advocate national unity and
oppose the occupation. Or look to Diala province which is
composed of 50% Shiites and 50% Sunnis and at the same time
is a strong base of the resistance. Two big Shiites tribes,
al Buhishma and the followers of Ayatollah Abdul Karim al
Moudheris, are with the resistance and everybody knows it.
The Ayatollah’s son fell in combat. He was the leader of a
big tribal contingent of the resistance. In Baquba, the
provincial capital, they cannot do the same cleansing as in
Basra with the Sunnis or as in Amara with the Mandeans. In
Baquba both Shiite and Sunnis support the resistance.
Certainly there are attacks by the different resistance
groups on the Iraqi government agencies, the US army,
Iranian forces and the Shiite parties and militias like the
Madhi army which are inside the political process, but you
will not hear of sectarian killings.
There is another example: Tal Afar in the Northwest of Iraq
near Mosul. Between 50 and 70% of its population is Shiite.
Nevertheless it is one of the capitals of the resistance.
It lies in the interest of the West and Iran to make the
conflict look like a sectarian one. Not only the US wants to
justify their presence with the need to impede a sectarian
civil war, but also Iran does. They want not only to grab
the South but they also want to have Baghdad and therefore
purge it from Sunnis. With their alliance with the Kurds in
the North this would suffice to control the country.
We do, however, not believe that these plans will work out.
There are very big tribes in the Arab world and in Iraq
which span the entire country from the North to the South
like al Jibouri whose people live from Nasseria to Mosul, al
Shamari or al Azouwi. Most of them include both Shiites and
Sunnis. There are some smaller tribes which belong only to
one sect but most of the bigger ones are mixed and the
inter-confessional marriages continue unabated.
They did not succeed in implanting the sectarian strife into
the base of the society. It remains on the surface of the
parties which co-operate with the US occupation. In the big
towns they also find some ignorant lumpen elements who they
can instigate, but they will not be able to constitute the
main political entities according to sect affiliation as it
is the outspoken US intention.
Q: At the onset, the Americans set all their hope on
the Shiite political parties but later they discovered that
the situation ran out of their control. So they developed
the strategy which was called redirection trying to bring in
Sunni forces and also sections of the resistance. Did these
efforts yield any results?
As time went by, the US realised that their allies’ loyalty
goes only to Iran. Many of them are even Iranians. For
example right now 13 MPs are officers in the Iranian army.
Or, in the former Governing Council only six members out of
25 were Arabs both Sunnis and Shiites. Another eight were
Iraqis belonging to minorities. So the majority were real
foreigners. The al Hakim family are for example from
Isfahan. Only some years ago al Hakim was still called
Abulaziz al Isfahani.
It were the US neo-cons to introduce the model of religious
and ethnic divide. They deliberately wanted to create a
Shiite rule as they wanted to have a minority in power, a
minority with regard to the entire Arab world, which they
thought to be able to better stir and control.
They originally planned to continue their campaign to
Damascus and install the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood there. So
Damascus would have supported the Iraqi Sunnis while Tehran
would have done the same for the Iraqi Shiites and the war
would have carried on for decades – not on the base of
anti-imperialism but on sectarian grounds. But the Iraqi
resistance foiled these plans.
The Iraqi resistance sprang up rapidly and gained strength
so they recognised that they could not cope with them only
by military means. This is the main reason of their
strategic shift. They designed the political process and
brought in the Sunni Islamic Party. They intended to dry the
lake where the resistance fishes swim. But soon the
influence of the Islamic Party evaporated and their leaders
have been flying to the Green zone or abroad.
At the same time they realized that the Iranians had deeply
penetrated into the state apparatus beyond the confines of
the game. So they moved to also curb this process.
Q: What is the situation of the resistance both in a
political and a military sense?
The resistance is still gaining strength. Only judging by
numbers they rose from some thousand now exceeding by far
100.000 fighters. Their combat capabilities increased as
well. But they could also develop intelligence structures
penetrating the Iraqi army and police but also sometimes the
environment of the US army. So all together the system of
resistance includes some 400.000 people.
The US army and their allies are really demoralised. While
the resistance fights to liberate its country they only
fight for money. Thus they are becoming more and more
savage. They increase numbers not only of direct US troops,
but also of mercenary forces which are even more barbarian.
Taken all together they consist maybe of some one million
Look to the US losses released by the Pentagon itself which
are obviously sugar-coated. If you disregard the months of
special military operation like against Falluja or Tal Afar
you can see a clear tendency. At the beginning you had some
50 US soldiers killed by month, then later it was up to 80
and now some 100 get killed each month.
The resistance is now a real popular movement; it is a
culture among the people. Everybody contributes its share.
And the fact that no government helps us has also its good
side. If they would pay than you have always corruption. The
typical Arab fašade would have been erected. Now, instead,
there is no excuse. Every section is responsible for itself,
to organise its people, to train it, to plan the attacks, to
raise money, etc.
Also politically there have been taken some steps ahead. At
the beginning there were hundreds of groups but people
understand the necessity of unity. Now we can say that there
are eight main groups. What has so far not been achieved is
a unified political command which remains one of the main
Q: There are reports of armed clashes between
resistance groups and forces related to al Qaeda. What is
the relation of the resistance to the Salafi and Takfiri
Let us remember that the West started with insulting the
resistance calling it foreigners and followers of the old
regime. They wanted to allude that the resistance has no
connection to the Iraqi people. Actually the resistance
sprang up on a very grass root level to defend its identity
against the enormous provocations of US neo-colonialism.
They were former soldiers, tribesmen, nationally and
religiously inspired people who acted in their immediate
environment. It was neither foreigners nor Baathists who
were the driving force of the inception although Baathists
were participating as well.
The way the US deposed Saddam was perceived as an aggression
to all Iraqis including those who opposed him. To be honest
eventually Saddam personally played an important role to
push his people into resistance. He did not try to save
himself by hiding as was being reported. No, he went from
city to city, from Tikrit to Samarra, Anbar and also
Baghdad. He contacted Sheikhs, officers and so on. He said
that they should resist not for him as a president, but for
the nation and for Islam. He asked them even to not use any
more his picture as a rallying symbol. Only in the following
months Baath could reorganise as a party and join as such
the resistance. From the point of view of the resistance it
was a great luck that they could not arrest him for a long
Regarding al Qaeda, in the first two years no such thing
existed under this name and even the Americans mainly spoke
of foreigners penetrating from outside and especially from
Syria. They tried to create a pretext to attack Syria
although Damascus did absolutely nothing to help the
resistance. On the contrary they did 200% what Washington
dictated to them to avert an aggression at least in the
In the first two years they were a very limited force with
maybe 1.000 to 1.500 fighters coming from inside and
outside. Also the level of military activity was not very
high. In a time frame of two years they themselves claim
some 800 attacks while the resistance were carrying out 800
attacks by week.
Later they steadily gained ground and they still keep
growing. They have a lot of money but they do not spend it
on a luxury life, but live a very decent life on minimum
needs dedicating everything to the struggle, which shows a
very serious and attracting behaviour. They spend the money
on the struggle. Most of the youths join them not for their
ideology but because they offer a place to resist.
In the East you do not need to write books to convince
people. If your personal life style is congruent with your
mission you will convince people.
When America started the political process it eventually
came to the benefit of al Qaeda. Those joining the political
process argued that otherwise the Iranians would take over
and in this way they would only co-operate a short period
and then could kick the Americans out as well. Of course
they failed. Al Qaeda argued in a very principled way that
only protracted armed struggle will advance their cause and
reality confirmed their way of thinking, their trend.
They offered money also to some resisting tribes with strong
Muslim identity which needed these resources for their
struggle. Thus they created a coalition of six groups, one
al Qaeda and five local groups. That gave them a big push.
They were not big forces like the Islamic Army but still
with roots in Ramadi, Falluja, Haditha etc. They gave their
coalition the name Mujahideen Shura Council. Under this
label they continue until now and not as al Qaeda.
They have a lot of resources and a steady supply also from
outside while the other groups get nearly nothing from
outside. Today maybe we can say that al Qaeda is the first
organisation of the resistance. They go separately from the
others but nevertheless in each city there is a kind of
council to co-ordinate military action, to chalk out a plan
Islam is a weapon to make the people rise up. The Islamic
history, the Islamic figures, the Islamic culture is used to
push the people to fight because they consider Islam as
their identity. National and religious symbols are being
mixed. The Koran says that if Islamic land is attacked by
foreigners, armed resistance is obligatory. This is until
today out of question in the common sense. Jihad becomes a
Muslim duty for the people being occupied by foreign
invaders like fasting and praying.
So all the resistance groups whether Islamic or not use this
spirit as a tool to mobilise and raise the people. Take for
example the statements of the Baath party and of Izzat al
Durri personally. Judging by his language you would believe
him to be an extreme Islamist. But this does not mean that
all of them are really Islamists.
The entire environment is Islamic. By Marxist or nationalist
calls you will not attract young people. Where ever young
people go you will find Islamic sentiment and spirit
dominating. This indirectly favours al Qaeda. People who
join them do not feel to do something not normal as the
general conditions are Islamic. On the contrary they will
believe to only act consistently.
Q: But what about the sectarian attacks? Doesn’t al
Qaeda bear at least partial responsibility for them?
The responsibility lies with the government both with its
Shiite and Sunni components, the US, Israel and Iran.
Regarding the attacks attributed to al Qaeda by the West,
one has to subtract 95%. And for the remaining 5% you hear
only a part of the truth. Sometimes al Qaeda retaliates to
governmental or militia attacks on Sunni areas by attacking
Shiite areas. They want to show the Sunni population that
they can defend and convince them to remain. They thus want
to foil the plan to drive the Sunnis out of Baghdad which
should become part of the Southern Shiite federal entity.
This is pursued by the Shiite parties, Iran and in the
beginning also by the US.
But this is not a strategy and happened only few times in
the last year reacting to big attacks. And for every attack
they take the full responsibility. They direct a call to the
wise people among the Shiites: stop the crimes which are
being committed in your name, otherwise you will have to
bear the responsibility as well. We are able to strike back
with ten times the force.
I do not want to defend this approach, but we need to
restore the facts from the distortions by the West.
There is another striking example. Al Qaeda started in
Falluja as the entire resistance started there. While it is
a 100% Sunni town right after the beginning of the
occupation about 12.000 Shiite families from the South took
refuge in Falluja and Ramadi because they were accused of
being Baathist. I was not only an eyewitness, but also
involved in organising the relief for them. They were helped
by the ordinary population because they regarded them as
being with the resistance. Until today about 20.000 Shiite
refugees remain in Falluja and not a single hostile act on
sectarian base could be observed not even by al Qaeda. There
certainly are quarrels between the resistance groups over
domination, this is normal, but not on the basis of
Q: Two years ago you founded the Patriotic Islamic
National Front comprising the Baath Party, the Iraqi
(Central Command) and the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance. There
are several religious figures both Sunni and Shiite who
support you, but until now the big military formations of
the resistance seem not to be represented by your front. Is
the time still not ripe for such a front?
It is an exclusively political front and not a military one.
That does not mean that there are no relations but we
confine ourselves strictly to the political level. Regarding
the Islamic military forces you must understand that they
were built as military resistance groups and did not have
any political representation. We are not interested to
recruit this group or that leader. No, we are in a
comprehensive dialogue with all of them with the proposal to
form a unified political command of the resistance set
against the so-called political process. Maybe it will go
the other way round that a co-ordination is formed and we
will join them. Our aim is not to show our role, but to
create this political unification.
Whenever we seem to be very close to accomplishment,
something happens which impedes its advancement. We also
know what is behind. It is the influence and the meddling of
the adjacent Arab regimes.
Regarding al Qaeda, they always want to remain separated and
are not included in this process.
Q: During all these years of the resistance, there
has been the problem of the ambiguous behaviour of the
movement of Muqtada as Sadr who on the one hand became the
main pillar of the government and a driving force of the
sectarian killing, but on the other hand speaks against the
occupation, against the American imposed federative
constitution and even against the sectarian strife. As he
leads the most important section of the poor people how do
you believe to bring at least sections of his followers to
join the resistance?
Contrary to most of our friends, at the beginning I always
stressed that his movement is very wide and that many
Baathists, Marxists and nationalists went inside to protect
themselves against the Iranian militias. Maybe half of his
movement comes from other political environments and were
not followers of his cleric family. So whatever mistake he
would commit I thought we could count on these people to
rectify it or retrieve at least some of them. Secondly, most
of his followers are very poor but at the same time
uneducated. Of cause this is a double-edged sword. Different
to the other Shiite parties the social background of his
base are not wealthy merchants who might speak one day
against the occupation and the next day sign profitable
contracts with the US. Their opposition to the occupation is
I believe that finally he has been pushed and cheated by his
allies in Iran, mainly Ayatollah Kazem Haeri who is the
successor of his uncle, and in Lebanon. Hezbollah visited
him three times advocating that he should follow the line
applied in Lebanon participating in the political process,
running for parliament, seizing positions in the state
apparatus and especially in the army thus enabling the
construction of a strong party. Otherwise al Hakim would
take over and dominate by the use of those resources. This
is why he ran on the list of his arch enemy al Hakim.
Everybody knows that his father was assassinated on order of
Hakim although officially Saddam is being blamed. Muqtada
originally also heavily attacked them including Ayatollah al
Sistani for co-operating with the US declaring them even
unbelievers. This is why they conspired with the proconsul
Bremer to kill him. Actually the US really attacked him
heavily. Under this pressure he backed down fearing to be
It is simply not true that he claims to be against the
constitution. He is fully involved in the political process.
He has 32 MPs and 6 ministers in the government which is all
to the benefit of the occupation.
Then they pushed him to attack the Sunnis in the prospective
to create a Shiite Mahdi state. At this point many of his
followers left him while other people joined him causing a
deep transformation of his movement. By now also the
Iranians have been infiltrating the Mahdi army to the point
that half of its personnel is composed of members of the
Up to 2004 Muqtada was on the right side. For example, he
came to Falluja. But after the blows he suffered, in 2005 he
moved to the other side. Now it is highly improbable that he
will rectify his line. Sometimes he makes some words against
the sectarian killings admitting however that his people are
involved and even dismissed three of his leaders. But they
continue. Partially he has even lost control over this
militia. If you give weapons and money to very poor and
ignorant people, if you make them strong, they often believe
to be able to take the reigns in their own hands. They
become mafia leaders and work on their own account.
All this was also possible because of the fact that he is
young, inexperienced and immature so he can be easily
influenced by his advisers, his environment including Iran.
Q: There are more and more reports that Shiite tribes
fight against the government forces. Can you explain this
With the occupation the Iranian militia in the South and
East went to kill officers of the former Iraqi army accusing
all its enemies to be Baathists. So many people were
Although they all belong to some tribes they were afraid to
defend them. But with the evaporation of the state
structures the tribes, are becoming more and more important
and powerful. Now they cannot accept any more that their
tribesmen are being killed by foreigners whether Iranians or
Iraqis not belonging to the tribe. If they come now to
arrest or kill somebody the tribes mount growing resistance.
There are many examples creating a new environment, a
sentiment which is directed against the pro-Iranian militias
and governmental forces. Recently there occurred a two day
battle near Shuk ash Shuyuk in the south where they tried to
capture a former officer. Hundreds took up arms to defend
him. He fell but not without changing the climate. He
belongs to a very combative tribe known for its bravery.
They subsequently formed a kind of mutual assistance pact
with other tribes against the pro-Iranian militias including
the Mahdi army, the army and police indicating a general
tendency which, however, remains local and did not yet reach
the general political level.
There is another important cultural factor. The militias
brought alien habits which cannot be accepted by the tribes.
Under the guise of the Mutha marriage they import
prostitution. And they spread the use of hashish.
Q: What about the foreign support to your cause?
We are being used by Arab politicians to reproduce
themselves without offering any real support. They speak of
the Iraqi resistance and about the American crimes in five
star hotels and on the satellite channels. That is all. They
could, however, do a lot, for example raise money or take to
the streets against their governments in order to close the
Iraqi embassies. But they understand that this would mean to
pass the red line of supporting terrorism as the US puts it.
We know from the past about the importance of material
support to the Algerian revolution or to the Palestinian
struggle. Huge sums were raised and still the ordinary
people are ready to pay. But nobody dares to collect this
money for the Iraqi resistance. These leaders are actually
cheating their followers as those suggest that they would
offer help in secret. But I assure you we do not get any
serious help from outside.
Paris, July 2007 Interview conducted by Willi Langthaler
English / Jul 23, 2007
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
those including personal
attacks and profanity are
See our complete
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
Well promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
Send Page To a Friend
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)