|
U.S. Loses Territory in Iraq
While the world looks in astonishment at the U.S. state failure in New Orleans, a similar embarrassment takes place in Iraq. The guerrillas win and hold territory in Iraq for the first time – the U.S. loses ground.
The Washington Post reports:
Abu Musab Zarqawi’s foreign-led Al Qaeda in Iraq took open control of a key western town at the Syrian border, deploying its guerrilla fighters in the streets and flying Zarqawi’s black banner from rooftops, witnesses, residents and others in the city and surrounding villages said.
A sign newly posted at the entrance of Qaim declared, "Welcome to the Islamic Kingdom of Qaim." A statement posted in mosques described Qaim as an "Islamic kingdom liberated from the occupation."
The United States occupation force in Iraq has lost a strategic city in Iraq. The enemy, that was fought but not beaten in Afghanistan, has now captured a city in Iraq. A country in which it has never had, and would never have had a base, if the U.S. had not attacked that country.
Just as with Katrina, the officials are clueless:
U.S. Marine spokesman Capt. Jeffrey Pool said Marines had no word of any unusual activity in Qaim, but added it was possible that insurgents were acting in areas out of Americans’ sight.
The local ARVN substitute was beaten, its leader killed by the insurgents.
A Sunni Arab tribe, the Albu Mahal tribe, simultaneously vowed to drive Zarqawi’s fighters from the area, with the aid of the U.S. air strikes.
…
.. a car bomb placed by Zarqawi’s fighters in front of the home of a tribal leader, Sheikh Dhyad Ahmed, killed the sheikh and his son on Sunday, resident Mijbil Saied said.
…
It was unclear whether any Iraqi forces were in Qaim. A Zarqawi fighter said any Marines and Iraqi forces had left Qaim, with "nothing left of their crosses."
This is a huge victory for the extremist forces. They capture a complete city from the U.S. forces and may even hold it for a while. They can now reinforce through Syria, as the Syrians are helpless against these forces too.
The few U.S. troops that are available in the huge Anbar province are up North near Mosul ghost fighting Zarqawi in Tal Afar, two hundred miles away from the western city of Qaim, and while in Baghdad the Interior Ministry in Baghdad is under attack.
The additional 25,000 troops that were supposed to reinforce the U.S. presence during the coming constitution vote and election have already been canceled. National guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana are send back from Iraq further weakening the available force.
The Air Force can and will of course bomb Qaim to rubble. But bombs do not hold territory, boots on the ground do. But there are no more American boots available.
Sorry abot screwing up the italics on the last post. I wrote it last night, then posted this morning without catching up on the thread.
Wow! So many great points made here. Kudos, esp. for folkers, Mono, Hannah K.O., Clueless, and DiD.
Two points: Clueless argues that because the USSR was Evil, we supported the more evil Bin Laden and Zarqawi. I agree. But, following this logic, an impartial observer of human affairs would have to conclude that this makes the US more evil than the Soviet Union. This is an argument from Chomsky, who calls the US “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” Note that this analysis does not rest on solipsistic “intentions”, as the American propaganda system would like it, but on effects. Therefore, the converse is also true: We are not more evil than other smaller empires, we just have the power to commit more violence in the service of control, and use it. The Soviets, Chinese and Europeans would do the same if they had our degree of power. History records that they did when they had that power in the past. To analyze “intentions” is to deceive oneself and others. You don’t care about intentions when you are on the receiving end of a sword, rifle or smart bomb.
Second point: The Neo-Cons are suceeding in their long term plan, which is to carve the Middle East up into small isolated city states, which are then easier to dominate. Iraq is almost completed, then they will calve off the oil-rich parts of Saudi Arabia, setting up the same infighting between the newly empowered and the newly disenfranchised that we witness in Iraq. The goal, then, is to spread from there, to Iran, Syria, Lebanon Redux, the rest of the Gulf, and probably Turkey as well. Secondarily, they are working surreptitiously, with the cooperation of Britain (who wants recover its lost regional hegemony), to weaken the E.U. This is why they pushed so hard for Turkey’s inclusion in the E.U. Conlicts in Turkey, like the conflicts in the southern Balkans are wars lapping at Europe’s borders, weakening Europe. That is why we invaded Afghanistan and reinstitued the Heroin trade, which principally flows into Europe. Same for a good deal of the fanatic Islamic cells in Europe. Ever wonder why these “Islamists” are more angry at Europe than the US? Why aren’t we riddled with Islamic cells here? Anyway, a little terrorism is always goood to control the populace.
All local events must be looked at as global in import. But, I digress from my main point here: The Neo-Cons are carving the Middle East up into city states. This will result in increasing violence, terrorism, and disruption of the oil markets.
The elite are set up well enough after all the tax cuts to ride out the coming, but necessary, global depression. Afterwards, assets can be picked up for pennies on the dollar. The goal of the depression will be to reassert political and economic control while lowering population levels and drain of the earth’s precious resources. Ecological measures will be implemented, but in a non-democratic top-down manner. The vastly mitigates any political cost, as change is “forced” upon us. This is important because the alternative is a “democratic people’s revolution”, rejecting the neo-liberal agenda, rejecting the green and biotech revolutions poised to control earth’s foodstock and water, and rejecting capitol intensive bureaucratic nuclear power, embracing local decentralized alternative methods of food and power generation.
The principle conflict among the ruling elite, is between this radical strategy–which risks vast upheaval of energy supplies, and greatly increases tensions that could lead to nuclear war and the end of life as we know it–and the more gradualist approach Clinton and the Democrats followed of undermining and weakening regional powers without redrawing map lines. This is the difference between using the UN for its own purposes, versus wanting to do away with any international say.
Anyway, that is my argument of what is going on in the Middle East from our side, not elaborating on the competing strategies of other global powers.
Posted by: Malooga | Sep 6 2005 14:34 utc | 47
|
