For once it’s even worse than Billmon says.
Here’s Henry Kissinger, our gov’ts quagmire expert, writing a Washington post op-ed in January 2002:
A second prerequisite for a military campaign against Iraq is to define the political outcome. Local opposition would in all likelihood be sustained by the Kurdish minority in the north and the Shiite minority in the south. But if we are to enlist the Sunni majority, which now dominates Iraq, in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, we need to make clear that Iraq’s disintegration is not the goal of American policy.
Oops.

Posted by: Vin Carreo | Oct 18 2006 4:49 utc | 3

I suppose this why all those dip-shits at the American Enterprise Institute look like geniuses to Bush, but at least they know that there is a difference between Sunnis and Shiites — now if they can only figure out what that difference between them and us is. Because obviously, and painfully, they can’t or wont because as they see it — its all about us — our leaders, our policy, our politics, our military, our soldiers, our casualities, our money, our time, our wants, and our needs. The Iraqis are only considered or even mentioned in terms of THAT.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 18 2006 5:32 utc | 5

Why is there no news about the HUGE Ammo Dump fires?
This looks like a major disaster.
Looks like a nuke exploded at about 3.55 into the video.
How can you tell that the MSM is criminally complicit?
They don’t even report something like this.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 18 2006 6:53 utc | 7

More…
From SITE Institute, whatever that is.
Islamic Army in Iraq Issues Video of Ammunition Facility Bombing in Baghdad, Commenting on the Operation at the Falcon Base

In an 8:19 minute video and transcript issued by the Islamic Army in Iraq yesterday, Sunday, October 15, 2006, the group provides footage of the bombing and resulting blaze of an ammunitions facility at the Falcon base of American forces in southern Baghdad. The attack, which occurred on the night of Tuesday, October 10, was claimed by both the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Conquering Army [Jeish al-Fatiheen], and was filmed by a Mujahid from the Salah al-Din al-Ayubi Brigades of the Islamic Iraqi Resistance Front, Ja’ami. Although the Islamic Army accepts that “anyone who has military experience” would inform that their use of two Katyusha rockets and three mortar shells cannot destroy a military base the size of the Falcon base, the group claims that it truly was done so because of the support of Allah.
The narrator of the video chides that a base costing several hundred million dollars and composed of much reinforcement, was destroyed by about three-hundred dollars worth of weaponry. He also reminds of statements from American military personnel of the extent of damaged incurred, not only to the base facilities, but to aircraft, tanks, and administrative and archival materials belonging to the Marines. However, the group claims that the military failed to mention the casualties or injuries of the five thousands “infidels” on the site.
This attack is claimed by the Islamic Army in Iraq as not only a victory for the Mujahideen and the Muslims in Iraq, but for Muslims all over the world. The group then calls upon those Mujahideen who could not travel to Iraq, Muslims, and Islamic scholars to make one of the ten remaining days of Ramadan a victory for the Islamic Nation, and to provide prayers and support. For financial support, the Islamic Army asks that donations be made through al-Nusra Electronic Charity.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 18 2006 7:34 utc | 9

That’s, uh, a really bright flash and apparent mushroom cloud in the video. Would we really be carrying a tactical nuke around in a local ammo dump? Assuming the video isn’t doctored, what would make that flash and cloud that’s not a nuke?

Posted by: Rowan | Oct 18 2006 7:58 utc | 11

@anna missed
I heard the resistance made a tape of it and put it out there, but has’nt made it here. Surely, it wasted the entire base.
uh, might wanna ck out my #8…
If you guys don’t hear from me again, see ya in camp.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 18 2006 8:07 utc | 13

Probably enough depleated uranium in the air around there to make the food taste funny.

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 18 2006 8:10 utc | 15

here as google sat picture of Camp Falcon. The ammo dump seems to be south of the camp, away from the living quarters. Still, there must have been guards around nearby.

Posted by: b | Oct 18 2006 8:31 utc | 17

Bernhard, it seems that the ammunition dump is the big yellow sheds in the top right of the image. And the barracks are in the bottom left.
So they are physically separated by what seems to be a few blocks.
Does the video show the extent of the fire?
In response to a previous question, of course a mushroom shaped cloud is the result of any smoke-producing explosion that has enough heat to rise straight up. As it cools at the top, it expands outward forming the mushroom shape.
This is a significant event since the major US ammunition and storage dump was in Camp Falcon located just outside of Baghdad.

Posted by: jonku | Oct 18 2006 9:04 utc | 19

This may not be the time or place for this, but here goes…
Okay, you fence sitters, what Gurdjieff called “the horror of our situation”
is at hand, “Do Not Go Quietly Unto Your Grave”, as the group Morphine sang…
I believe w/everything in my mortal coil that we are at the witching hour, what else can one make of the current events?
Mineta testimony on Cheney stand down/shoot down

If Mineta’s testimony is to be taken into account, and there is no apparent reason why it should not be, questions about the timing of events the morning of 9/11 come into focus. Most obvious is, if the standing order given by the Vice President prior to the aircraft hitting the Pentagon was not a shoot down order, then what was it? Perhaps it was the danger of this question, and the danger that Cheney would have had to commit perjury to uphold the timeline reported in the mainstream press, that caused the Vice President to testify to the Commission along with the President in closed session, with no transcript, no witnesses, and no public accountability.

and
Bush Administration Insider Says U.S. Government Behind 9/11

Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush’s first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an “inside job,” and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This interview footage was recorded in June 2006 at the Chicago 9/11 Truth conference.

CBS eye on America

Rumsfeld said on September 10: “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions”
The next day, September 11, the Pentagon is hit. But where?
“The impact area included both the Navy operations center and the office complex of the National Guard and Army Reserve. It was also the end of the fiscal year and important budget information was in the damaged area.”
-Arlington County After-Action Report

Olbermann on the Murder of Habeus Corpus

Today, 135 years to the day after the last American President suspended habeus corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At it’s worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the founding fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed today with the stroke of a pen.
George Washington University Constitutional Law professor, Jonathan Turley, joins Keith to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as “a stain on our nations history.”

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 18 2006 9:44 utc | 21

” Add the fact that America hasn’t mentally outgrown its obsolete isolationist tendencies, …”
I’m glad that it’s looking like Bush and his friends are going to lose.
But let me caution Billmon and I’m guessing a whole lot more people.
This is an anti-war, anti-bush event. In my opinion at least.
It may even be anti-corporatist, whatever exactly that really means. And I think a lot of people are just plain tired of gay bashing.
But under no circumstances should you think your worldview is totally validated. Isolationism is good. And it’s what I want at least.
I’m not blind. I would always keep a close eye on the rest of the world. I would have China’s attitude towards copyrights and patents. I would keep a strong military, particularly the navy’s attack submarines, though the bloated military would be shrunk to oh say a third or a quarter of it’s present size. And no overseas bases. Heck I’d tell Hawaii and Puerto Rico they’re independent now. Happily give the Cubans the key to Gitmo.
Right now we have one indispensable import and that’s oil. If the whole world doesn’t get past that one we no one has much of a future. Mercantilism is good. Japan and their emphasis on flexible robotics is our role model. We can and will have their place in the world.
Don’t enjoy this victory too much. If the democrats don’t get us out of this war asap there’s hell to pay in my opinion. And headed in the direction of anti-globalism and isolationism. Is there anyone in the world besides candy-ass chuckleheads that benefit from it, or at least aren’t hurt by it that are in favor of globalization? Unless they are practicing mercantilist nations such as exist in East Asia?
Get ready for OGEC (Organization of Grain Exporting Countries).
And you get ready too. I might start a blog this time. I think you internationilists are going to get an awful shock as to what this election really means. If the democrats are a disappointment, perhaps the republicans can be purged of neocon influence at least. I don’t think the fundamentalist vote is all that vested in the Wall Street or libertarian clique at all. And in two years there can be another turnover.
The blog wars could be interesting. Countless times over the past few years I’ve read the ones linked off of kos and thought the point was missed. We can find out I guess.
Ta Ta for now.

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 18 2006 13:01 utc | 23

Hick-up. I swear I posted this in this thread, but both posts turned up on the Ken Lay thread …
===
Yes, but are we talking about Wahabi Sunni? And which mudhhab of Shia are we speaking of?
And do we realize the impact of Shari’a teaching and Quranic edicts on both houses of faith when the Umma is threatened by infidels?
If someone had managed to crack open Cheney’s skull with some hard “facts”, such as the Wahabi’s rejecting any specific mudhhab and relying upon direct interpretation of the writings — which is the chief cause of the divide with the Shia, then he might have realized the intense folly of enabling the Shia in Iraq, on his quest for cheap oil.
It won’t be Cheney’s cronies who gets that oil, so to speak. And it was written.
===
Translation: This is why they allied themselves with Chalabi, thinking it would give them a strong card with the Shia circles in Iraq. Which means the NeoCons weren’t entirely clueless when it comes to relations between Sunni, Shia and shades between.
It’s just that Cheney thought he could control the Shia … A laughable proposition, given that Cheney pretends to be Christian and represents Christian power. The Umma wahida – is the Quran’s reference to the duty of all of the faith when faced with threats from outsiders: you are to be One Community, and aid all believers ini the struggle against the infidel.
Bush’s Mission Accomplished was doomed from day 1.

Posted by: SteinL | Oct 18 2006 16:51 utc | 25

Here’s my comment from Tristero’s “Scandalous Ignorance” post
(link):
——————————
Yeah, sure, Sunni Muslims are followers of the “tradition” of the Prophet Muhammed and the first three ruling Sunni caliphs, or leaders of the Islamic community, and Shi’a Muslims follow the “family” of the Prophet Muhammed, particularly Imam Ali, the Prophet’s first cousin and son-in-law. Sunnis constitute 85% and Shi’a 15% of Islam’s 1.5 billion adherents. Shi’a Muslims are principally concentrated in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Azerbaijan as majorities and significant minorities in Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen and Lebanon as well as Qatar, Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia. Sunnis constitute majorities in all other Muslim regions from Morrocco to Indonesia.
But the easiest way to differentiate between the two sects is Sunni Muslims are the ones defeating us in Afghanistan, western Iraq and Palestine and Shi’a Muslims are the ones defeating us in Lebanon, southern Iraq and Iran. Also, Shi’a Muslims are the ones who booted our puppet Shah’s ass out of Iran, cut a deal with Reagan, Poppy Bush and the Israelis to keep the hostages till after the ’80 election and blew up the Beirut Marine barracks in ’83 when dumbass Reagan intervened in the Lebanon civil war on the side of the Phalange Christians against various Muslim militias. Oh yeah, the Shi’a are also the ones who kicked Israel’s ass out of Lebanon…twice.
Hope this clears things up. Have a nice day everyone.
PS. The Shi’a are also the one’s who will defeat us when we attack Iran and the Sunni are the ones who will overthrow our puppet regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and then defeat us when we attack those countries. Regards…
——————————
Feel free to print it out for handy reference or, better yet, send it to your People’s Deputy.

Posted by: Pvt. Keepout | Oct 18 2006 17:26 utc | 27

International Crisis Group
Understanding Islamism
Middle East/North Africa Report N°37
2 March 2005
This report is also available in Arabic and French.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Reacting to the spectacular and violent events of 11 September 2001, many Western observers and policy-makers have tended to lump all forms of Islamism together, brand them as radical and treat them as hostile. That approach is fundamentally misconceived. Islamism — or Islamic activism (we treat these terms as synonymous) — has a number of very different streams, only a few of them violent and only a small minority justifying a confrontational response. The West needs a discriminating strategy that takes account of the diversity of outlooks within political Islamism; that accepts that even the most modernist of Islamists are deeply opposed to current U.S. policies and committed to renegotiating their relations with the West; and that understands that the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war occupation of Iraq, and the way in which the “war against terrorism” is being waged all significantly strengthen the appeal of the most virulent and dangerous jihadi tendencies…

Raw source page – PDF(En)

Posted by: Outraged | Oct 18 2006 17:46 utc | 29

Raw source:

Terrill, W. Andrew.
The United States and Iraq’s Shi’ite Clergy: Partners or Adversaries? ,
Strategic Studies Institute, 2004.
PDF

Posted by: Outraged | Oct 18 2006 18:23 utc | 31

The recent posts about lack of knowledge of basic culture and language in the Middle East in this government leave me at an utter loss for words, just sitting here with my mouth agape in horror and shame.
Diplomacy is shit, people must submit. “Word,” as my teenaged son would say.
It certainly explains how and why we rained destruction down on centuries of carefully archived texts, works of art, and age-old archeological sites in Iraq, the very cradle of civilization. And why the “CPA” was staffed with 24-year-old Republican loyalists. And how and why our troops are just marching like sheep to the slaughter. And why we have been moronic enough to allow Abu Ghraib and other dreadful abuses in a society where honor is paramount.
And even as I am crafting this post, I get the following “CNN breaking news” email in my inbox: Four U.S. soldiers accused of raping and killing a 14-year-old [Iraqi] girl and slaying her sister and their parents will face courts-martial on murder charges, military officials say.
Anthony Shadid’s book Night Draws Near: Iraq’s People in the Shadow of an American War is a good read to understand just how massively we have miscalculated in all these many respects.
Oh how absolute power corrupts absolutely… to the core. But there WILL be a very steep price to pay for generations to come. And I believe the “American Empire” may be one of the shortest-lived ever, done in by its own hubris in very short order.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 18 2006 20:08 utc | 33

Its was’nt clear back then why Clinton insisted on maintaining painful sanctions on Iraq even though most or all the allies including the French had backed out. Even after the extent of death & suffering endured by the Iraqi people became well known publicly.
In retrospect, it seems pretty clear that the screws were being turned on Iraq and the invasion/occupation/colonization/subjugation of Iraq and its oil was the end-game. The only questions were when it would happen, how & who would do it.
Also, its not clear that a better understanding of the Shia/Sunni religious history would have made that much of a difference ultimately. Because even in the absence of Islam, resistance driven by nationalism would still amount to a formidable obstacle.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Oct 18 2006 21:04 utc | 35

the reporter is Richard Sale, sorry

Posted by: anna missed | Oct 18 2006 23:09 utc | 37

It certainly explains how and why we rained destruction down on centuries of carefully archived texts, works of art, and age-old archeological sites in Iraq, the very cradle of civilization

George Orwell, in 1984, showed tyrants rewriting history and the language of history in ways horrifying to think about; but Orwell was a long-delayed latecomer. More than 500 years earlier, at about A.D. 1430, the Aztec ruler Itzcoatl thought that the common people should be spared the knowledge contained in ancient books “for they contained many falsehoods,” so he ordered them all burned and replaced by a new image that would exalt his conquering elite. After Spaniards conquered the Aztecs, the Spanish Inquisition ordered similar destruction for a similar purpose.
— francis jennings, the founders of america

probably encounter the same thing happening around the mediterranean even earlier…

Posted by: b real | Oct 19 2006 3:58 utc | 39