|
U.S. Again Gunning For “Regime Change” In Iraq
Three days ago we said:
The U.S. has conditioned any involvement on the Iraqi government side on a change in its structure towards some "unity government" that would include representatives of the rebellious Sunni strains. Prime Minister Maliki, who received good results in the recent elections, will see no reason to go for that.
As expected Maliki declined to follow orders out of Washington DC and he is right to do so. Isn't Iraq supposed to be a sovereign state?
No says Washington. It is us who are choosing a new Iraqi prime minister:
Over the past two days the American ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, along with Brett McGurk, the senior State Department official on Iraq and Iran, have met with Usama Nujaifi, the leader of the largest Sunni contingent, United For Reform, and with Ahmad Chalabi, one of the several potential Shiite candidates for prime minister, according to people close to each of those factions, as well as other political figures.
“Brett and the ambassador met with Mr. Nujaifi yesterday and they were open about this, they do not want Maliki to stay,” Nabil al-Khashab, the senior political adviser to Mr. Nujaifi, said Thursday.
This move lets arouse suspicions that the recent insurgency against the Iraqi state, with ISIS takfiris in the front line, did not just by chance started after Maliki's party, the State of Law Coalition, won in the parliamentary elections a few weeks ago. It had been decided that he had to go. When the elections confirmed him, other methods had to be introduced. Thus the insurgency started and is now used as a pretext for "regime change".
The U.S. media and policies again fall for the "big bad man" cliche portraying Nouri al-Maliki (Arabic for Ngo Dinh Diem) as the only person that stands in the way of Iraq as a "liberal democracy". That is of course nonsense. Maliki is not the problem in Iraq:
The most significant factor behind Iraq’s problems has been the inability of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and its Sunni neighbors to come to terms with a government in which the Shias, by virtue of their considerable majority in Iraq’s population, hold the leading role. This inability was displayed early on, when Iraq’s Sunnis refused to take part in Iraq’s first parliamentary elections, and resorted to insurgency almost immediately after the US invasion and fall of Saddam Hussein. All along, the goal of Iraqi Sunnis has been to prove that the Shias are not capable of governing Iraq. Indeed, Iraq’s Sunni deputy prime minister, Osama al Najafi, recently verbalized this view. The Sunnis see political leadership and governance to be their birthright and resent the Shia interlopers.
The U.S., with strong support from its GCC allies who finance the insurgency, now seems to again lean towards the Sunni minority side in Iraq and wants to subvert the ruling of a Shia majority and its candidate. Maliki doesn't follow Washington orders, is somewhat friendly with Iran and even wins elections. Such man can not be let standing.
So the program is again "regime change" in Iraq, now with the help of Jihadists proxies, even after the recent catastrophic "successes" in similar endeavors in Libya, Egypt and Ukraine and the failure in Syria.
Phil Greaves seems thereby right when he characterizes the insurgency and ISIS as a expression of Washington's imperialism:
The ISIS-led insurgency currently gripping the western and northern regions of Iraq is but a continuation of the imperialist-sponsored insurgency in neighboring Syria. The state actors responsible for arming and funding said insurgency hold the same principal objectives in Iraq as those pursued in Syria for the last three years, namely: the destruction of state sovereignty; weakening the allies of an independent Iran; the permanent division of Iraq and Syria along sectarian lines establishing antagonistic “mini-states” incapable of forming a unified front against US/Israeli imperial domination.
The best thing Maliki could now do is to shut down the U.S. embassy and request support from Russia, China and Iran. South Iraq is producing lots of oil and neither money nor the number of potential recruits for a big long fight are his problem. His problem is the insurgency and the states, including the United States, behind it. The fight would be long and Iraq would still likely be parted but the likely outcome would at least guarantee that the will of the majority constituency can not be ignored by outside actors.
@JSorrentine et alia
Regarding the Yinon plan, perhaps we can look at it from a popularisation perspective. What I’ve found makes Zionist commentators a bit uncomfortable is hammering on the fact that AQ whines a lot about Israel, but never attacks Israel. I’d like to see the US population go ‘into play,’ i.e. have a general knowledge of what their authorities are up to, and cause some shit on that front.
But there are two problems, and conservatism is largely symptomatic of those problems. The fact that most anti-colonial movements are anti-US is seen as a personal affront to vague US patriotic sentiment; how do we get the US into play without taking patriotic sentiment into account? Moreover, the dysfunction of most of the ‘post-colonial’ societies is apparent to all, including those who pretend that it doesn’t exist; pointing out the US role in that dysfunction will be experienced first of all as an affront on US patriotism. Unstated, vague white-supremacism in the US wrt the black population is the same phenomenon.
The main hope on that front is that the current crop of administrators in North America and Europe are stupid—the bright sparks that do shit like Yinon and chaos-sowing are growing older [Brzezinski, Kissinger and their cohort], and would have been partially replaced by younger personnel had the current crop not been so stupid—this isn’t about ego, but about an objective reality—your current administrative personnel is stupid, for well known biochemical/policy reasons that changed 40 years ago (lead petrol); the up-and-coming personnel (thirties and younger) don’t have that problem.
And there is a fundamental problem with your position. Any authority structure looks powerful, much like the facade of a building. Once you start tearing a building down, the assumptions of the system become apparent. Go reread the books by Gene Sharpe; take away his ridiculous assumptions about his home society, and about the societies that his books serve to attack (both are often highly alienated, although his victims are not substantially more or less so than the US). If you stop presenting the US and Israel as invulnerable, you might actually find more resistance occurring. Hezbollah after all studies Hebrew.
Compare your presentation, which is geared at mocking liberals (the fact that it is well-deserved speaks more to your status as a disillusioned former liberal than to the effectiveness of such mockery in recruitment—do we need more former liberals to build a movement, or are there other population groups from whom one can recruit initially? Your presentation is Tom Tomorrow, with facts that are beyond the pale for the latter) with the following brute statement of facts:
1. The Israeli strategy is old-fashioned divide and rule with Arabs. For an example, read Yinon. Notice that the goals to be achieved, namely dismembering nation states by foreign-sponsored campaigns, constitute terrorism, and would never be accepted in the states that sponsor Israel. [Likewise, the riots in the coup in Ukraine would never be accepted in USA, Canada, Germany, France, nor UK…]
2. The US strategy is to weaken poor countries to get cheaper access to their natural resources, such that US and affilated corporations get to pay a lower price for the resources, thereby realising a larger markup on those resources when reselling to western consumers, civilian and military. The only African country that gets a reasonable royalty is Eritrea, which is of course falsely accused of supporting Al Shabaab in order to harm the country and get you [the audience that you are addressing] to support sanctions against them. For details on how these commercial arrangements are achieved by the US government, one can consult the US Iran embassy documents, especially those relating to embassy-based ‘trade’ promotion, although the tactics may have evolved a bit from there.
3. The US strategy is implemented by a relatively small and consistent set of tactics. These include sanctions, cultivating a local pro-US elite that is a set of pathological liars (Ukraine presently presents the funniest examples, but any pro-US country can provide thousands examples); this is often achieved with ‘human rights’ organisations, that are fanatically dishonest, and have laughable double standards. New elites are constantly being groomed in the ideological institutes (e.g. ‘human rights’ groups; economic ‘think tanks’), to be assisted into power by US sponsored coups de etat whenever the sitting elite gets ideas.
4. The status of the US-sponsored sitting elites is cemented through various corrupt schemes. Having these elites relatively replaceable has the advantage that the US can posture (through various ‘anti-corruption’ goNGOs) as being anti-corruption, thus their propaganda during a coup does have a correspondence to reality, and will be a mobilizing factor for the replacement elite’s supporters, and thus we see such hyper-corrupt fellows as OBJ of Nigeria being a big player in Transparency International, funded by the likes of NED/IRI, WorldCom, Enron et alia.
5. The US system is relatively vulnerable; while they can murder without substantial risk of in-kind retaliation, their efforts at coups often fail, when they fall back on sanctions. But because of ideological choices made by the US, they are now in a situation where the sanctions risk harming their strategic position. And the continuation of the US system is dependent on a continual flow of natural resources, and (own goal—damn you, Bafana Bafana…) just in time inventory—witness shortages of food in central Ukraine right now 🙂
6. Another vulnerability of the US is its finances; wars are generally financially ruinous, so the US has turned to pyramid schemes, e.g. the petro-dollar and the like. This system is gradually unravelling, despite several US attempts at maintaining the status quo, e.g. the terrorism in Ukraine, Iraq, Libya et alia. But each new elite they install will need a semi-functioning country to plunder in order to have something to plunder at all. Therefor they keep on going back to the same ‘problematic’ (to the US) behaviour.
Another weakness in your position, again due to your liberal background, is your fanatical presentation; you give no hint of a life beyond politics—this is harmful for actual interaction with people. And your 9/11 position reflects that—I’ve got enough of a physics background that I can say with some confidence that the US government position (buckling induced failure) accounts far better for the collapse seen in the videos than any of the alternative theories—why did the entire facade of the towers fall at once, with deformed geometry? The squibs theory requires relatively consistent geometry, let alone the timing issues 😛
Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 21 2014 11:28 utc | 172
|
