From the Archives of Al-Moharer
The political and strategic program of the Iraqi Resistance
The Iraqi heroic resistance led and managed by the Arab Baath Socialist Party, has defined its strategic objectives as a national liberation movement “to expel the occupation forces, liberate Iraq and safeguard it united and ahomeland for all Iraqis”
Based on these objectives, a political and strategic resistance program has been set and designed for the phase of resistance and liberation.
The Occupied Iraq:
It is the geographical-political Iraq: “The republic of Iraq”, the sovereign, the founder and member state of the Arab League, the member state of the United Nation, and whose territories are occupied by the US, British, Australian and other forces, following an aggression contrary to the international Law and United Nations treaties and which was a target of a war on the 19 April 2003. These circumstances led to the removal of its legitimate government and the appointing of a “provisional occupation Authority”. Whatever is or has been undertaken by the occupier to establish institutions, ministries, authorities, committees etc. to replace the legitimate government of the Republic of Iraq, after the date of 9/4/2004, is considered as null and illegal and it is un-separable part of the organizational system of the Occupier and the resistance deals with it as it deals with the occupation itself.
The Occupation Forces:
These are the military forces, the departments, the agencies and organizations attached to the US, UK, Australia or any other nationalities which are on the soil of occupied Iraq, and whoever is involved as multinational forces following the Security Council Resolution 1483 which considered Iraq as an occupied country. Whatever decisions taken after the occupation of Iraq, following the US-UK war by the other foreign coalition or multinational forces, authorities, committees will be considered and dealt with as Occupying forces, authorities and committees, and will be legitimate targets for the Resistance in its war of liberation.
The Iraqi Resistance:
The Iraqi resistance is the national armed resistance, led and directed by the Arab Baath Socialist Party, through its militant cadres, the heroic Iraqi army, the Republican Guard forces, the valiant Special Forces, the intrepid Forces of the National Security and the Mujahidins of the Saddam’s Fidayyins heroic organization and the Iraqi patriotic resistance, and the dignified Arab voluntaries which act under different mobilization names and titles and formations and act according to the needs of the combat operations, confrontation and attacks against the foreign occupiers, who (the Arab volunteers) are already in Iraq and who will be on the soil of Iraq in the future, whatever their nationalities, names, missions or the duration of their stay. One of the Resistance main missions in its war of liberation, while combating the Occupation Forces and whatever links they have and whatever connections they establish with these forces, is to intervene technically and administratively to jeopardize and prevent the Occupation authority and its ramifications from implementing its political, economical, social and cultural plans. The operation of this resistance cover all the immaculate land of Iraq from one extremity to the other incarnated by the unity of the Iraqi soil, and stressing the Iraqi unity and defending the Arab identity of Iraq targeted by the occupiers or by whomever they may appoint.
In our confrontation with the other parties (Arab, regional or international) we must understand that the ongoing confrontation with the US, since the cease fire announced by the US, in February 1991, was the fundamental pretext chosen by the US, considering the US strategic objectives first in the region and the world. Iraq since then was not a cause of any crises as far as the implementation of the following International resolutions. The ongoing confrontation imposed by the US, gave the Iraqi leadership the maneuvering margin to deal or to manage a series of crises. The mainstream corporate media presented Iraq as the source of the crises confronting the countries in the region and the World.
To the exception of the Iraqi ongoing and practical defiance towards the US-UK No Fly Zones Resolution, the series of what is now known as the successive Crises of the Iraqi Question, was a US attempt to amend, develop, falsify and activate the trajectory of the confrontation imposed on Iraq according to the US given facts linked to its general policy or interests for both successive US administrations into dealing with their internal electorate and international problems. This was clear through the many Security Council successive resolutions which ended by going beyond the precise demands of the mentioned cause fire resolution, and to talk about a US intervention and instigation to set more resolutions to set the basis for targeting the political system of the Republic of Iraq.
The US targeting the political system in Iraq, which led to its occupation is a known and analyzed fact since 1972. It is based on the US (imperialistic) interests, commanded, in that time, by the equation of the cold war, the further consequences of the 1967 aggression, the British military withdrawal from Eastern Suez, “the Arab Gulf” and the policies and the energy crises during last century, in the seventies and eighties.
Today, the confrontation, from the very beginning, when the 30 countries participated in the aggression in 1991, took the form of the National armed Resistance after the occupation. Other elements that command the march of this confrontation could be added, and all are not foreign to the US interests in the region and the world. These added components were formed by:
1 – the familiar end of the Cold War and the political and economical reformation of Europe
2 – The US particular requirements to act unilaterally and to use its overwhelming force.
3 – the dubious coming of the conservative right to the political affairs in the US
4 – The influence of the 11 September strike on the decision making and designing of the US foreign policies led by the (the dim-witted) Bush Jr. Administration and the formation of the US (confrontation) reaction, in the terms of the Administration political discourse in the economical, defense and security fields.
5 – the overexploitation of the “War on Terror” to establish and attempt to impose new alliances and ways of life on other countries, societies and cultures.
6 – the ongoing slowness of the US economy and its entry in the crises phase.
7 – the failure of the US energy policies promised during the election campaign.
8 – The setting for a different “Israeli” role, with an administrative and security link helping the US in its dealing with petrol resources from the East Mediterranean to the farther central Asian regions, and in particular the Arab Gulf, and this important added factor has its dialectical correlation to the means and ways to find a pacifist solution to the Arab-Zionist conflict.
The announced objectives and the true hidden ones:
1 – Targeting the political regime in Iraq is a well aware of and known fact since 1972. This objective was designed and implemented by the US strategic policy planners and mainly by Henry Kissinger (Republican) the national security advisor in that time. However putting the policy into practice was determined / limited by:
– The balance of the cold war.
-The various regional allegiances, and the connections and references of the countries of the region.
-The consequences of the June 1967 and October 1973 wars.
– The wish of some Arab regimes to play a regional role tolerated by the US following the mentioned wars.
Here it is important to analyze the nature of the allocated and played roles (in that time) to and by political regimes such as Syria, Jordan, Egypt and even Iran. According to the analyses above, the objective was rather poorly attainable and requested regional plotting from regional countries and was based on the inheritances or crises of the past political eras, Iraq experienced. Here it is worthwhile to note that the reasons for targeting Iraq were not different as pretexts from what they are today: Security and economical reasons (“Israel” military superiority and domination over the region and petrol interests)
2 – In all situations the US regional plans, including areas from north Africa to central Asia “the petrol sources and routes”, Iraq was one of the most distinguished targets as an economical geopolitical unit, considering its geographical situation, its petrol reserves and its population disposition and the nature of its political system. Add to this the roles already or possibly played by Iraq and the range of its influence on the official Arab regime from one hand and the Organization of the Petrol Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the masses reaction on the Pan Arab level.
3 – The United-States since the end of World War II, has linked, both security of the geographical arrow spreading from the Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean and the Arab Sea, and was for several reasons the only player into the arena of security and policy missions away from the intrusion, or the involvement of other western countries or the NATO. This explains the US military involvement, and for more than once, as a well aware of phenomenon, especially in Korea and Vietnam. This US strategic objectives were, inter – alia, to tighten the control, in different degrees, on the Arab Gulf, by having the upper hands on the Gulf outlets, and for geographical and communication components, targeted Iraq specifically. Iraq orientation towards the East Mediterranean and Red seas during the last twenty years, was a kind of a partial loosening determined somehow by the US influence through its alliances or through its influence on Iraq neighboring countries and those situated on the shores of the above mentioned outlets.
4 -The US; inheriting the British colonialist era, acted in an imperialistic manner and according to the cold war imposed equation, and always considered with suspicion and sensibility, the Indian sub-continent current developments to the point that its historical alliance with Pakistan bore in its essence, intentions to plot against India whose distinguished relationships in that time with some Arab countries and specially Iraq, was confrontation against the US plotting enterprise, linking the Pakistani political, security and economical interests, with the collaborating Gulf Arab and Saudi regimes to face the independent policies of Iraq and its distinguished role in the Non-Aligned Movement.
5 – the period in between September 1980 up to September 2001 has seen important experiences / situations which are not at all strange to the objective of targeting the political system in Iraq. Needless to talk here about the tools and the nature alliances, to tolerate or to shut an eye concerning the role played by the others involved into the direct or the indirect confrontation, according to different interests, In all cases they never crossed the line permitted by the US strategic needs in the region and towards “Israel” security. Here we must note that there were two wars, which targeted Iraq in that period. Both targeted its political system publicly and through different justifications, both were based on that Iraq political system identity and practices were not acceptable, both targeted Pan Arabism and Arab identity from a religious and imperialistic point of view. Thus both wars (and the confrontation is still goes on) speculated and concentrated on dismembering Iraq and disrupt its Arab fabric. The experience showed that in the mentioned wars, both attackers against Iraq and its political system were allied with Iraq neighboring countries due to reasons either to historical collaboration with the West or in the hope to play regional roles allowing them to tolerate and perpetuate the concerned regimes according the international plans for the region, in that period.
The historical exposé above, was necessary to assert that the publicly announced and the hidden true US objectives into its confrontation with Iraq was not linked to the implementation of the UN Resolutions following the February 1991 Cease fire. They are the same well known and aware of objectives, which targeted the political system in Iraq since 1972. These objectives are narrowly connected and coherent with US regional strategy towards the region first and towards its global strategy in the second place.
Towards the region: the identity, the policies and practices of the political system in Iraq stand and act against the US interests in guaranteeing and insuring the continuity of “Israel” security and superiority. Towards the global strategy: rejecting the hegemony and giving a political and a development identity to the Iraqi petrol, and its well known positions in OPEC, the independent foreign policy of the Iraqi state, the delay of establishing the diplomatic relationship severed since 1967 with the US, and the voluntary orientation to build a scientific and defense equilibrium with “Israel” and with the non Arab neighboring countries looking for an occasion to prey on Iraq or which are allied with the US, and the economical help to Arab and non Arab countries and the interests based on balanced relationships with influent European countries. All these factors created situations that contradict the US global strategy. US confrontation with Iraq, through implementing its regional, and global objectives / strategy as it has been explained above, were always and still are connected. They have a dialectical link to each other which boast the mentioned confrontation and activate it in many situations when the US political, economical and security interests are at stake directly or indirectly because of Iraq or because of someone else. These links were activated and boasted in a clearer and in an incarnated way when the Iraqi action in the1990 Call Day was considered the danger threatening the colonial interests inherited from the Sykes-Picot agreement which commanded and still does (through its dictates and spirit) the Arab Levant up to this instant.
To clarify the above we would like to expose the following elements:
-The nationalization resolution as a patriotic and pan Arab policy was treated and considered as a threat to the US strategy on the regional and the global level.
-The Iraqi unexpected and not accounted for participation into the October 1973 war was taken into consideration and studied to face its future consequences for the same above-mentioned reasons.
-The patriotic initiatives to find political and democratic solutions to the Kurdish question for the same reasons above.
-The Iraqi position and its pan Arab policies towards Camp David first agreement.
– The different political initiatives coming from Iran and the defensive actions and the developments of the military actions in the al Qadissiyah.
Iraq initiatives to activate the Arab multilateral action and the creation of the Arab cooperation Council.
In the same process and when the US national security was hit through the strikes against New York and Washington on the September 11 by a party which was not Iraq, the targeting of the Iraqi political system was activated and concentrated upon by the US higher decision makers. Thus their “war against terror” in its political, and military processes included ” it even concentrated” on the political system of Iraq and became the principal title of that war.
Moreover from the very first weeks after the strikes against Washington and New York, and in the middle of the chaos, which followed, the US administration, this Administration has issued a warning to the Iraq leadership. And here the connection above was made and what we explained concerning the situation of Iraq and its political leadership was confirmed as far as the US strategy is concerned on the regional and on the global levels for considerations linked to “Israeli” security, regionally, and to the hegemony over oil, globally.
We add also, by insisting on the Weapons of Mass Destruction question, a the pretext held and used in its confrontation and war against Iraq and its political leadership, the US actual dealing with the north Korean challenge (as a matter of comparison) in the nuclear and ballistic fields (inspite including north Korea in the “axis of Evil” with Iraq and Iran) in that time, and knowing that the north Korean threat due its geographical position and because of its military abilities, is a real one to the US security : threats against US west cities and forces in south Korea and allies in east Asia.
The US dealing with the problem doesn’t seem to be at the level of the challenge and the threat coming from the other side. So the comparison between the situation of Iraq and that of North Korea lead us to some paradoxical state of affairs which is in itself a confirmation of the following:
– “Israel” security is more important for the US than South Korean security.
– The Arab Iraq “under blockade” in its time and its oil “chained” capabilities are more dangerous to the US security and its allies than North Korea which lacks petrol and which possesses actual nuclear and ballistic capabilities.
– Iraq neighbors were asked and forced to give facilitations to the US military aggression, but the Korean neighbors behaved according to their regional interests through finding a peaceful solution with North Korea.
The paradoxical assertion mentioned above were necessary to the US strategic buildup, and to any interests evaluations, on political, economical and security levels and to the justification of its conflicts from a geographical, national cultural and of civilization point of view.
Here we have to assert that the management and the leadership of the resistance to expel the occupation and free Iraq, is nothing but a continuation on a higher level of the management of this confrontation. The described situation in its measures and in its dimensions is necessarily, a historical ongoing confrontation. Thus, for analysis purposes, for the organizational components explanation, and for the vision of the future, to confirm what we described and what we said, we must mention the following:
1 – The crises in its described nature since August 1990 goes back to the British inherited colonialist era for Iraq and what has been based upon since the Sykes-Pico agreement in 1917. It was the period, which witnessed a colonialist behavior opposing Iraqi patriotism in an attempt to hurt and undermine the regional sovereignty of Iraq.
Also these policies were long-term targets against the Arab national interests and security in all the Arab Levant.
2 – and it is also necessarily based on paragraph (1) above that the US linked the creation of the situation (crises) historically and it continuation and its intensification in the future to the establishment and the continuation of the existence of the Zionist entity on Palestine soil.
3 – and it is necessarily, i. e. the crisis, could fade or grow with the waning or the renewal of the Iraqi patriotism and the effect and the interactivity of all this with Iraq pan Arab environment.
4 – Last, it is, based on the colonialist and imperialistic understanding, a tool referred to, used and activated according to the interests needs of the US strategic plan implementation (now) in the region and in the world. It can also be forged even to serve the US administration narrow purposes for internal or election purposes.
Thus the confrontation has a past, and can explain what is going on today or in the future. From a historical dimension, it is an ongoing confrontation.
This confrontation between both sides, through its historical dimension, due to its causes and complexity commanded its results depending on the confronting Iraqi level. This confrontation, and particularly since August 1990, and twenty years earlier, was ongoing indeed and its results were not clear-cut. It became for the US imperialism dogma as the modern times confrontation (through confrontations plans and phases, and the stubbornness the various US administrations since August 1990 to stay in their respective trenches) forced through terror or money, other countries of the world and the region; to follow its politics in a confrontation linked to US policy and interests, led and managed by the US itself These politics were most of the time, contrary to the interests of those aligned with the US policy. Considering its management, contents and targets, it is in fact a world confrontation, which required and requires an alliance against Iraq imposed by the US either by terror or through bribes and schemes.
The confrontation, through the US ongoing aggression, is made on behalf of one single regional party “the Zionist entity”. This crisis was linked historically, to artificially boosting its superiority with whatever means over the entire Arab nation. The US in its deep involvement and its confrontation management cares only about the Zionist entity security and stability. Thus giving the confrontation a true pan Arab battle.
The ongoing confrontation and the ongoing resistance:
It has been clear, the US strategic objective (the removal of the political system in the Republic of Iraq) was not possible to achieve unless:
1 -The continuation, the intensification and the activation of the political confrontation.
2 -Thwarting any attempt by the Iraqi political leadership to lift the embargo.
3 – Hindering Iraqi political and economical move towards the countries of the region and the world.
4 – arranging the official Arab realignment “if possible” with the US plan to remove the political system in Iraq, which succeeded, agreed upon by many Arab regimes, without daring to talk about the later consequences of this plan for Iraq, for the mentioned regimes, or for the region.
5 – Attempting to directly link the strategic targeting with the legitimacy of the US pretexts and military aggression, insuring the US leadership, determining alone its military dimensions and controlling its known results calculated on the US military size and supremacy in the war, allowing it to impose the nature of the political consequences of the military action which ” theoretically” will conciliate the political consequences used to serve its strategic target in occupying Iraq to achieve its regional and global strategy.
The Iraqi political leadership examined in its time, and before the aggression, the following situations and possibilities:
– The confrontation with the US will not remain purely political, because of the quality of the Iraqi political performance in this confrontation incarnated by the Iraqi success into objectively separating between the US and (submissive) UK positions and other permanent members of the Security Council.
This analysis was strengthened on the basis that the targeting of the political system in Iraq is “a declared principal” and goes along with US political strategic plans in the region not only presently but much earlier, and that the confrontation developments will not be controlled by the Iraqi action itself which was trying to avoid its escalation.
– The possibilities of compromise with the US in general, regardless of the White House administration nature, were almost null, and were linked to the change of the geopolitical map in the region designed in 1917 and which led to the actual political and geographical state of affairs of the Arab Levant linked to the imposed creation of the Zionist Entity, which itself determined and controlled: the political-social, the political-economical, and the political-security roles for every geopolitical unit dealing with it (the Zionist entity) or changing it, according to the original roles given to these units (roles given to serve the interest of this Zionist entity. The (imperialist) US inherited from the (colonialist) Britain, developed and activated the right to impose its views on the regional geopolitical components and used this right in different means and ways to achieve its strategic objectives in the region and in the World in a way to help the security and the supremacy of “Israel” and its hegemony and the control of the petrol and the energy policies.
– The official Arab impotency in the best circumstances and the Regimes submission and plotting in the worst situations did not and will never help the possibility to develop a political confrontation with the US forcing it to reach a compromising phase. Above all was the impotent Official Arab selective stand into implementing the International legitimacy as an opening to stop or to call off the political compromise with the US.
– Moreover the beginning of the main Arab roles in the Golf exhaustion either by military occupation and later after the aggression against Iraq in 1991, or after 11 September 2001 and the role given to Iran due to its “special Islamic” fabric, played in accordance to the new expected role which the Iranian Mullahs can play in the future, on the detriment of the Saudi role, politically and Islamic ally exhausted after the collapse of communism and the exhaustion to use the “submissive and collaborating” Islam which led to the birth of the “defiant and resistant” Islam from the womb of the submissive and collaborating one which contradicts the existence and the orientations of the Saudi regime…Iran plays and will play in the future a role due to its ” present position” which rejects the defying and resistant Islam born as a result to the US aggressive war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran neighbors.
– The US has put some small Gulf Arab and the official Arab System mainstream Countries forward and in other Arab region to the point that playing a role was linked to the automatic submission, in order to ensure the continuity of the concerned regime, its renewal or its development, to stay in power or to bequeath ruling even in the non royalist regimes. Small country regimes were able to play influential roles to the detriment of large Arab country regimes. This was rendered possible due to their ‘normalization’ with the Zionist enemy, and the alignment of their regimes, the facilities and support to the US in its war and occupation of Iraq which forced the Arab main stream countries later “as is the case right now” to accept the illegal Occupation decisions and outputs.
– The Leadership in Iraq has examined too and since long time after the reestablishing of the normal relationship with Egypt in the mid eighties, the depth of the Sadat era crises inherited by the actual Egyptian regime, its inability and unwilling to overcome it and its paralyzed stand regarding its consequences; a situation which led to neutralizing Egypt’s capabilities and qualities as an Arab and regional influent country. This has been evident through the hesitation, the fear and the political handicap of the Egyptian regime and its initiatives in the “Arab Cooperation Council” at the time, and both its sensibilities and fear from the Saudi regime and its suspicion of the other Arab roles as individual countries or as axis inspite of Egypt prevailing population, historical, political, cultural and military position in the Arab system.
– When the political Leadership in Iraq activated the principle of the pan Arab national and objective correlation of the Arab Zionist conflict represented “only” by the Palestinian people struggle against the Zionist occupation, with the Iraqi people struggle to break the embargo; the US was advertising for an authorized solution for the Palestinian Cause through of Arab regimes agreement to remove the political system in Iraq as a necessary condition for a solution to the Palestinian Cause and this under the international legitimacy cover in order to implement Security council resolutions???. These resolutions imposed disarmament in Iraq of WMD as a step to clean the whole Middle East from these same weapons. In the end Iraq was right and there was no WMD and now who will ask the Arab regimes to implement the paragraph 14 of the 768 Resolution?
The situations and the analyzed possibilities above were necessary to explain the Iraqi political leadership strategic understanding
1) Concerning the continuity of the confrontation and,
2) The unavoidable internationally rejected illegal aggression and,
3) The complicity of Arab regimes and,
4) The enemy military superiority and,
5) The connivance and the opportunistic stand of some foreign regional countries and,
6) The roles given to the Zionist entity in security, managerial and political fields due to the aggression and to the occupation consequences; and,
7) Threatening and using known Arab regimes and,
Stimulating the dismembering and partition elements in Iraq and,
9) The deep political connection of the Iraqi puppet opposition political decisions with the occupation plans and the narrow sectarian, ethnical, fanatical and egoistic interests, and,
10) The readiness and the adoption of the armed resistance line, evolving into a national liberation war with a specific political and strategic program on the national Iraqi and pan Arab levels.
Based on these elements, the objectives of the armed Iraqi resistance led and managed by the Arab Baath Socialist Party as a liberation movement is to expel the occupation forces and to achieve the liberation of Iraq, safeguard the country and hold it unified and a homeland for all Iraqis.
The Resistance choices:
The Iraqi resistance adopts and develops its choices based upon:
1) Its national responsibility and the Iraqi identity of its belonging to Iraq the cradle of civilization.
2) Its pan Arab national identity.
3) Its Islamic civilization sources.
4) Its Jihadi accumulated practices and experiences.
5) Its understanding of the ongoing confrontation nature and its requirements.
6) Its revolutionary implementation taken from its militant day to day actions.
7) Its inspiration from the Baath thought and its message.
Its analyses, examinations and evaluation of the achievements phase and the confrontational resistance episodes against the occupation.
9) To follow up and analyze the roles of the inside occupation stooges and collaborators.
10) To follow up and to determine the roles of the Arab regimes either before or after the occupation.
11) To make known the cooperation of the foreign neighboring countries and their collaborating arrangements with the occupation for their proper national interest on the detriment of Iraq and its national unity.
12) To divulge, to reveal and to determine the opportunism of the third parties economic interests under the occupation.
13) To draw attention to the role given to the “Zionist entity” and the developments of this role under the occupation and the collaboration of Arab regimes and/or the interconnection of other regional powers interests.
Based on the above, the Iraqi resistance as a national liberation movement believes in:
1) The continuity of the resistance as long as there is an occupation and under any means or on any parts of Iraq regardless of the international resolutions taken after the occupation.
2) In the legitimacy of the resistance and its right to undertake military or any other action and to combat and fight the occupation forces personnel, equipment and gatherings, bases, military camps, headquarters, departments, management and supply lines and its support services, offices and organizations, occupied building and security support centers. Etc.
3) The legitimacy and the duty to combat the collaborators and the stooges, as individuals or as parties or committees and any other organizations and under whatever name.
4) Destroy and disrupt the Occupation effort to steal, exploit, and profit, in whatever form, the Iraq wealth, possessions and services through military; managerial or technical requirement ways and manners to achieve their objective.
5) In spreading and developing the armed resistance to cover all the soil of Iraq and to involve all Iraqis stressing their equal obligations and right to resist and to liberate Iraq, in whatever name or title.
6) In acting to achieve the formation of the Iraq army of liberation as a further development in the Resistance action for the liberation of Iraq.
7) In the non-existing possibilities to get any help from all the Arab regimes due to causes linked to the nature of the official Arab system as a whole and due to the nature and the roles of some Arab regimes and especially those puppet countries surrounding Iraq, which have lost old roles or which are willing to play new ones designed by the US with Zionist Entity agreement and in accordance with the US regional strategic vision.
The duty and the right of the Arab masses to join the Armed Iraqi resistance based on the national responsibility and right, which doesn’t contradict with the Iraqi responsibility and right based on Iraqi patriotism.
In this present phase of the Iraqi resistance struggle and Jihad, and what could later on happen in the light of the confrontation development in its different phases, the Resistance action shall go side by side with the final objective, and considering the achievement of tactical suitable objectives and the phase of the political and ethical impasse experienced by the US administration and its British ally due to the scandalous collapse of the pretexts of their illegal war and occupation of Iraq, the tactical objectives of the resistance are oriented towards the strategic objective which is to expel the occupation forces and to liberate Iraq and to keep it a unified homeland for all Iraqis.
The Resistance through its confrontation and combat actions plays an important and an influential role into deepening the political impasse before the US Presidential and British general elections, to uncover their lies and disrupt the political programs undertaken by London and Washington and to tell the voters in the US and UK and the International opinion that:
– The false pretexts used to wage the war, the illegitimacy of these pretext into targeting and removing the political regime in Iraq and occupy it.
– The impossibility to implement the political, economical and security and any other projects designed by the occupier on the soil of Iraq and hence impossible to generalize it in the region and in the world, to limit it to be considered only; nothing else but a mere aggressive action of an imperialistic nature, to show the plotting plans against Iraq and against the Arab Nation, which allowed to a unilateral use of the tyrannical force due to the global imbalance, and to consider the aggression and the occupation as a model linked only to the US unilateral use of force.
– Disrupt the roles which may be played by some Arab plotter regimes, due to their need to deal with the occupation and its plans, and to compromise and discredit these regimes into their planned and possible dealing with the Iraqi question and to reflect that on their political, economical and security daily crises.
– Increase the crises into the region and its representatives and prevent the achievements of any neighbors interests on the detriment of Iraq and its national unity, and increase greatly the cost of their support to the aggression and their dealing with its plans and programs in Iraq which aim to dismember the Iraqi national unity based on ethnical, sectarian, egoistic and foreign interests enslaved to the occupier and linked to its existence.
Based on the political and strategic program, the heroic resistance continues, gets stronger, spreads and gets involved in the confrontation battles within the continuous confrontation and crosses the phases of the national liberation war and gives a triumphant example as it has done before, other peoples in different times of the humanity age in their struggle against the forces of evil, aggression and occupation.
Long live Iraq free, and defeated be the occupation.
Long live the heroic Iraqi Resistance.
Long live the Baath militants and long live the Secretary General (Saddam Hussein).
Glory and eternity for the dignified martyrs of Iraq.
God is the Greatest.
God is the Greatest.
The Arab Baath Socialist Party
Iraq on the 9th September 2003
Translated from Arabic by Abu Assur – Al-Moharer