I received several messages of complaint and inquiries after the publication of my interview with Salem al-Jomaili, head of the US branch in the Iraqi intelligence agency that operated under the former regime.
The most significant messages were those that said the facts the interview laid bare had “opened old wounds” or “reignited fears.” Nothing hurts a journalist more than hearing that one of their interviews had reawakened the fear of persecution or the pain of the families of victims.
I received a telephone call from a former officer who had worked in the same agency. He said the interview gave him the right to respond and clarify some issues. He spoke on condition of anonymity for security purposes.
He said: “I am not questioning Jomaili’s statements. Several officers are aware of the things he spoke about. They are also no secret to the agencies of the countries, namely the United States and Iran, that seized the sizable archive of Iraqi intelligence.”
“The US carried out long and tough investigations with members of the agency. Some were executed, others died from illness and others were sentenced to long prison terms,” he added. “The US agency is aware of most of what Jomaili spoke about as it had already imprisoned and investigated him.”
“Salem al-Jomaili was head of the US branch. He never took part in foreign operations, whether they were related to bombings or assassinations. He did not have a say in planning or execution, rather he played a different role,” remarked the officer. “Jomaili would have been better off leaving these issues to the people who were directly involved in them, of course, when the security conditions are right.”
“Moreover, the interviews did not focus on the fact that the blows the agency was dealing were part of an exchange of blows with the other party,” he added.
“The regime believed that Iran’s policy of exporting the revolution was a threat to Iraq’s unity and existence. The intelligence agency had to wage a battle with all of its might. The reprisals, displacement and regional changes that took place after the US invasion confirmed those fears. Baghdad was aware of Iran’s military strength, but its harassment of the regime and Khomeini’s intentions towards it left Iraq with no other choice.”
“You may not agree to publishing my response like this, but I believe it is my right to express my view,” continued the officer. “I know that the journalist is constantly seeking an exciting topic, but some exciting topics could be painful and perhaps not appropriate to discuss before a few decades or at least when the relatives of the victims are no longer with us. The same applies to the families of the perpetrators who may pay the price.”
Asharq Al-Awsat published the interview in its print edition and various platforms according to strict guidelines that are followed by all of its employees, regardless of their position. It, therefore, assumes responsibility for what was published. However, it is not responsible for the reactions on social media, especially when those platforms are often filled with unrestrained spite and fabrications. It is odd how far some would go in speculating over the timing and purpose of the interview.
The doubters have neglected the fact that the interview was part of the “recollections” series that I had kicked off over two decades ago. Those interviews have covered politicians, security officers, and even wanted suspects. The series is aimed at collecting interviews from people who were present at significant milestones, before they are gone.
They also provide a platform for confessions that could help people who are documenting this raucous period that we experienced. I would not be exaggerating in saying that I have published statements far harsher than Jomaili’s, made by people who were close to Moammar al-Gaddafi. This is purely journalistic work that provides future generations with the opportunity to learn about the practices and conditions that led to the breakup of entities and to rivers of blood.
We cannot escape from our past forever because it is stained with blood and assassinations. We won’t be able to leave the darkness and oppression if we surrender to the fear of facing the mirrors that remind us of our societies - especially societies that surrender themselves to the harsh, anxious, terrified or wounded figures. Societies cannot rid themselves of the devils in their memories through fear and silence.
Moreover, we are not playing the role of judge and we are not concerned with damning or polishing the image of others. It is up to the readers to judge, dismiss or simply turn the page.
Several countries have endured the same hardships witnessed by Iraq. They have treated the wounds of the past through openness, reconciliation and justice and the establishment of institutions that would prevent the past from repeating itself. These countries have spoken of the tragedies of the past so that their futures will not be tarnished and weighed down by them.
Here, I would like to applaud the courage of some Iraqi journalists who have dealt with these issues head on without attempting to ignore them and hoping they would be forgotten.
I am also aware that Iraq’s history is drenched in blood. Harsh practices have marred entire decades. The severity of the former regime has also been replicated by some of its rivals after its downfall. I am also aware that digging up thorny issues could alarm some people who are hiding from the past or others who are in exile. These deep wounds cannot be treated with silence. They must be addressed away from vengeance or the exploitation of pain.
Like others before them, the series with Jomaili are part of journalistic work based on the reader’s right to know more about their country or countries they are interested in. Jomaili was not an executing officer in the operations that he spoke about. He recalled what he knew about during his time in the agency. I hope that the facts have not opened old wounds or awakened old fears.
