Intelligence analysis vs. Harka

By Johnny D. Symon

(First Published October 17, 2005)

Last week the CIA released documents that claimed to have forewarned President Bush of a possible civil war as a result of his planned removal of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Regime. This news was snatched up immediately by the Spanish media and used as a weapon against the United States by the Liberal fraternity, and the sad fact was that its timing was more interesting than its content:

This week Saddam stands trial, and this week Iraq's referendum on the new Constitution is held with the help and consent of the Sunni group.

Civil war has quietly bubbled under the surface of Iraq for more than thirty years. It remained under the surface because of Saddam's brutal war

against his many opponents. The removal of Saddam unleashed the power of the discontented, but it was not due to United States Military presence!

"Mulai Hassen was then at the zenith of his power. He was
a "strong" Sultan, probably cruel, and certainly capable.
His energy was never-failing, and he maintained order amongst
his lawless tribes and stamped out the constantly occurring
revolts by an almost unceasing "progress" through the
country, accompanied by his rabble of an army."

— "Morocco That Was," by Walter Harris

In many parts of the world civil war is being contained, and in many instances through brutal means.

On occasion the subverted break through and the course of a nation and its relation to other nations changes tack. The French Revolution is a case in point, but a better example, in respect of last week's CIA Press Release, would be the American Civil War.

If civil war is such a bad thing, why was it ultimately so good for the United States and, in turn, so good for many deadbeat nations that rely on its power and wealth? Had Israel been solely reliant on those CIA Intelligence analysts' guidance back in the 60's, would they have taken on the might of its neighbors or surrendered? Was the Six Day War not proof in itself that pen-pushing college boy analysts should be relegated to the back of the class, leaving the real decision making to Military Tacticians?

"However rotten the state of Morocco may have been at
that time, Mulai Hassen's strong hand held its fabric together,
and presented to the outside world a front of great dignity. "

Ibid.

Mulai Hassen's Moroccan Harka, or "The Burning" in English, contained the feudal elements throughout Morocco and prevented mass bloodshed — something ironically similar to Saddam's actions over several decades. And here lies the difference between the Arab mind and the Western one: Arabs believe in Theocracy and therefore God-given leaders. They accept their lot in life believing that whatever comes their way, be it either good or evil, is by Allah's Hand. They also generally suffer brutality from their leaders because, unlike the Westerner, they respect strength and power even at its most brutal.

The Six Day War's result is another prime case in point. Very few Arabs would argue against the view that Israel's victory was a God-given "David and Goliath" situation! They respect power and equally have nothing but contempt for weak leaders.

The subversive elements in Iraq broke surface and began to operate thanks to the US Administration's soft-handed policy on and after the war. They constantly assured the world that the war was not about oil and pledged to pull out, lock stock and barrel, as soon as the Western term "Democracy" was established in that land. In my opinion those were the big mistakes that helped the insurgents and restored their courage to recruit and attack.

Our assurances were in effect a display of our weakness and our cowardice — and those two things are what Arabs despise the most!

The Battle of Trafalgar was fought and won by the British Royal Navy and against all odds. Twenty-seven British gun-ships against thirty-three Spanish and French with superior fire power. Two important elements that furnished Britain's victory were superior military/naval strategy and an incentive program, commonly in force back in the good old days, called prize money. When British able seamen went to war they knew that the harder they fought the richer they would get. When some French prisoners were run down the gang planks by British seamen onto English soil back in 1780, ladies in the town of Gosport sang ...

Sailors, they get all the money,
Soldiers they get none but brass —
I do love a jolly sailor!
Soldiers they may kiss my arse.

But even soldiers benefited throughout history by the prize money incentive, just ask Alexander the Great. He employed that method to great effect, and as a matter of fact it's a Biblical concept, too.

It's the green-minded, earth-aware, yellow-backed cowards of the 20th and 21st centuries, headed by the United Nations, that take all the fun and profit out of going to war!

And that's despite the fact that modern warfare is less life-risky for American warriors due to the superior tools we have developed.

Saddam's "Mother of All Battles" hardly lived up to its name. But Saddam will live up to his name as the truth comes out in court. His years of murder, mayhem, and unbridled decadence have come to a close, and reckoning is at hand. But as with many Arab leaders who held their people in an iron grip, thus keeping the threat of civil war at bay, the joint referendum held this week on Iraq's Constitution is by far a better solution to Iraq's age-old problem.

"It was the last decadence of the decadent Moorish Court.
The Treasury (of Mulai Abdul Azziz) was fast being emptied,
the revenues were being wasted, foreign loans were being
raised, and the palaces of the Sultan were littered with
packing-cases, the contents of which the British Press once
seriously described as "evidences of Christian civilisation
at Fez."°

"Of what did these "evidences of Christian civilisation" consist?
Grand pianos, kitchen ranges; automobiles and immense cases
of corsets; wild animals in cages, strange theatrical uniforms;
barrel-organs, hansom-cabs; a passenger lift capable of rising
to dizzy altitudes, destined for a one-storied palace;
false hair, cameras of gold and of silver with jeweled buttons ...
an infinity of all that was grotesque, useless, and in bad taste."

Ibid.

This account given in the early years of last century mirrors Iraq, post-Saddam, that we experienced just a few years ago. A different time, a different place, but the same problem. The leader of a Theocracy gone wrong. The greed, the decadence, the hate, the subjugation and murder. But the sole difference is that the U.N., thankfully, played no part in Mulai Abdul Azziz, Sultan of Morocco's commis voyageurs. The U.N.'s "Oil for Fraud Program" was reserved for the end of last century through the beginning of this one.

But as for the CIA's assurance several years ago, of an Iraqi civil war, can we expect it before the referendum or some time afterwards?

© Johnny D. Symon