Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 21, 2014
Who “Interferes” In Iraq?

in·ter·fer·ence

a. The act or an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding.
b. Something that hinders, obstructs, or impedes.

This lack of self-awareness of U.S. functionaries is embarressing:

Iran has sent "small numbers" of operatives into Iraq to bolster the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, but there is no sign of a large deployment of army units, the Pentagon said Friday.

"There are some Iranian revolutionary operatives in Iraq but I've seen no indication of ground forces or major units," [Pentagon spokesman Admiral John] Kirby told a news conference, apparently referring to Tehran's Quds force, the covert arm of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"Their interference in Iraq is nothing new," Kirby said.

President Barack Obama announced Thursday plans to send up to 300 US military advisers to Iraq but stopped short of ordering air strikes against ISIL forces, though he left the door open to that possibility.

What is Iran hindering, obstructing or impeding?

How does the Admiral characterizes U.S. deployments to Iraq?    

Comments

@Alan
For the record, I at no point denied nor doubted the close connection between the neo-cons and Israel, as you describe. Rather, the issue I’m raising with ineptitude is the implementation of these attacks as time progresses. Take Lebanon or Ukraine. While they do seek some sort of chaos, they manifestly don’t want their opponents gaining popular support in the victim societies. Look at the neo-con/AQ Mustaqbal militias—sniping at students and the army at the same time in Lebanon—how did that work out? It might have worked in Europe in the 1960s-90s, as part of a GLADIO campaign (e.g. Ukraine’s sniping—note that it is the same tactic), but the hoodlums that they used in Lebanon were too obvious (which was probably the feedback they needed for Ukraine, and even there, anyone who doesn’t want to be fooled can see through it; a part of the problem was the lack of an active resistance in Ukraine).
Likewise, they achieved their goal in Libya. What now? That opens up all manner of possibilities, puts all sorts of goodies on the black market, etc. When bona-fide opponents of empire in Libya start playing the AQ rule-book (run with the chaos), the whole point is lost, and there will be neo-Qaddafi types should someone try to play the ‘state-building’ game.
The breakup of Sudan and the subsequent (entirely expected, to anyone paying attention to Uganda and the non-Neo-con US elites) mess in south Sudan showed Uganda’s hand to millions, and risks the Rwandan and Ugandan states; the US predictably brings in some soldiers, which gives all manner of opportunity for study (the US aligned states already had mineral access courtesy of Kagame et alia). And by letting South Sudan go without too much of a fight, Sudan might well get the south back.
Somalia hasn’t had a recognizable state for a long time; the memo would have been before the ICU. They attacked. Now the resulting chaos has given Ethiopia ideas (Chinese dam), and it shouldn’t be too long before Kenya gets ideas either (so far, only prospecting for oil by Chinese companies, although African countries do import large quantities of Chinese products). And Eritrea’s forces have now had much more opportunity to study US tactics. Another round of Rwandan crimes, and Kivu might just feel some DRC patriotism (provided DRC actually starts shooting Rwandan regime terrorists)—and Tanzania has had enough opportunity to see what is going on.
Iran should be fun. The bulk of the population is not treasonous, and is relatively well educated. Because the neo-con policy package took long enough to implement, Iran’s been able to develop internal measures in response to sanctions, and as the BJP is always pushing Indo-Aryan civilization, with corresponding economic collaboration with Pakistan and Iran, South Asia looks more like a trap for the US—any funny ideas, and a number of US soldiers are suddenly hostage.
If they take Jordan, their ally Saudi is in trouble, especially from refugees. And the Yemenis might take Riyadh back—it was a Yemeni city; when the Sauds took it, the Yemenis left, and the Sauds replaced them with urbanized Bedouin. The resulting chaos may give the local south-Asian slaves some ideas, and suddenly Iran is no longer the major threat on the strait of Hormuz.
But back to ineptitude. The group that is truly inept was born especially between 1965 and 1975, and they are still largely in relatively lower ranks. What happens when they reach executive positions? Nulands was born in 1963. Achieving a goal that you set for yourself might boost your self-image, but it doesn’t necessarily advance your cause.

Posted by: Johan Meyer | Jun 22 2014 19:13 utc | 201

@ alan @ 198
I’m not sure your dividing the Global Monopoly finance capitalist ruling class into neoconservatives and not neoconservative and less neoconservative is correct or useful. They are all Imperialists with the same world view, more or less. Also your presenting evidence of gross incompetence and calling it proof of omnipotent power. No, I don’t buy that either. That they keep reaching for the same failed response over and over means that they don’t have anything better. To the charge that they keep rewarding themselves for their failed ideas, well : )…what else are they going to do ? Admit that both they and Capitalism are failures and resign in shame ? This just proves that they are who they are, and what I say they are.

Posted by: Marc | Jun 22 2014 23:22 utc | 202

Forget that nonsense about incompetence. It is utterly impossible to be so constantly incompetent.
A truly incompetent administration would at least SOMETIMES do something good for the country, if only by statistical chance.

Posted by: T2015 | Jun 23 2014 11:12 utc | 203