IRAQ – BRILLIANT STRATEGY AND PERFECT IMPLEMENTATION
IRAQ – BRILLIANT STRATEGY AND PERFECT IMPLEMENTATION
INTRODUCTION
Iraq is back in the media
spotlight as the Islamic State for Iraq and Syria (ISIS), born from the ashes
of the 2003 US invasion, moves towards Baghdad. What is common in most media
articles on the subject is a tacit agreement that the 2003 Iraq invasion was a
disaster, either in the strategy or the implementation or both. But what if the
strategy was well thought out and its implementation perfect? Why are we so
quick to believe that the US government and its allies from Europe, Australia,
UK, et al, went from one bad decision to the next in a series of seemingly
reactionary and shortsighted moves that has resulted in a bloody chaos that
will continue to bleed innocents' blood for generations? Why won't we consider
that this is part of a grand plan, the execution of which has so far been
successful?
REASONS FOR THE 2003 INVASION?
The 2003 Iraq invasion and
the current escalating situation is complex and the rationales behind the
events have had many critiques. Experts provide detailed hypothesis,
politicians have agenda based explanations, locals have first hand
interpretations and conspiracy theorists have alternate views ranging from
"credible" to "tin foil hat theory". Finding rational reasons
for the invasion of Iraq is more difficult than one might think. There are many
proposed or cited reasons of course and the main ones are:
·
Saddam’s regime had links with international
terrorism groups;
·
Iraq was preparing to use their "weapons of
mass destruction" (WMD)
·
The US were supporting democracy for the Iraqi
people by ridding them of an oppressive regime;
·
The West wanted control over Iraq's oil resources;
·
The events of 9/11 needed to be avenged;
·
It was a key component of the plan for a New World
Order.
But let's look briefly at
each of these to see which ones make the most sense.
Saddam’s regime had links with international terrorism groups.
Earmarking particular
groups as "international terrorists" is a moving feast. Groups that
were once terrorists may now be considered as allies and vice versa. The
Taliban, for instance, was once seen as an ally of the US particularly in the
Reagan years where they were referred to as "Afghan Freedom
Fighters". The Bin Laden family had been involved in many business
dealings with G W Bush during his time as leader. Iraq was given military
support and weapons by the US in their battles against Iran. For the purposes
of this exercise though, we must assume that the Taliban and Bin Laden were
considered terrorist organisations by the US at the time of the invasion.
Most reports of the
relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Bin Laden show that they had an
adversarial relationship.
The 9/11 Commission Report
stated "Bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime"
and "there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden.."
Analysts have tried to
link Saddam to terrorism groups and although there are tenuous connections from
Iraq to groups linked to terror, there is no overwhelming evidence that links
Saddam's regime to terrorist organisations.
Iraq was preparing to use their "weapons of mass destruction"
(WMD)
It has been officially
admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the
invasion. This is despite a mammoth effort by elements within governments to
uncover them and thus justify the invasion. It is now public record that the
issues of "aluminium tubes that could be used in nuclear weapons" and
"Niger supplies yellowcake to Iraq", that were the main reasons used
to invade Iraq, were completely false.
As Jeremy Scahill writes
in his book, "Dirty Wars", when JSOC was deployed to Iraq soon after
the invasion, their priorities were to uncover evidence, through any means
possible, including extreme interrogation techniques and torture, Iraq's links
to al Qaeda and the location of any weapons of mass destruction. Donald
Rumsfield, then Secretary of State, became increasingly frustrated that neither
could be supported and eventually the Government admitted that there were no
WMDs
In September, 2002,
General Bill Odom said the following on the House Floor:
"No credible evidence
has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No
evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the
contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda
and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism."
The US were supporting democracy for the Iraqi people by ridding them of
an oppressive regime
As far as "oppressive
regimes" go, there were far more oppressive regimes around the globe at
the time, Burma, Sudan, Pakistan and North Korea amongst them. Although the
removal of an oppressive regime is often quoted as a sound and moralist
rationale, it is rarely used as a standalone reason. It is hoped it will be a
byproduct of an invasion rather than a reason.
The conditions in Iraq,
immediately prior to the invasion, allowed little scope for an oppressive
regime. In August 1990 Iraq seized Kuwait, but was expelled by US-led, UN
coalition forces during January-February 1991. Following Kuwait's liberation,
the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass
destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections.
The international economic sanctions, and damage from military action by the
international coalition drastically reduced Iraq's economic activity. The
implementation of the UN's oil-for-food program in December 1996 helped improve
conditions for the average Iraqi citizen. Iraq was allowed to export limited
amounts of oil in exchange for food, medicine, and some infrastructure spare
parts and in December 1999 the UN Security Council authorized Iraq to export
under the program as much oil as required to meet humanitarian needs. 28% of
Iraq's export revenues under the program were deducted to meet UN Compensation
Fund and UN administrative expenses.
If the aim was to
"free the Iraqi people" then the approach to the invasion may have
been handled much differently and the implementation of a fair and just
government would have surely have been implemented by now. The coalition had
many issues trying to resurrect an operational government following the
invasion and the current leader of Iraq, Maliki, has proven to be yet another
unsuccessful attempt. The Guardian recently stated "Iraq's governance
(has) descended into sectarian authoritarianism." The truth is that the
current Shiite controlled government has led a vicious and unrelenting attack
against the Sunni population which has fuelled the current rebellion.
The West wanted control over Iraq's oil resources
While Iraq's oil reserves
are important, the cost/benefit analysis shows that oil could not have been a
prime motivator for the invasion. Although its oil reserves are second only to
Saudi Arabia's, Iraq represents less than 5% of the world's pumping capacity.
The time taken and the revenue required to reestablish and grow Iraq's oil
pumping abilities outweigh the benefits. The West already had control and access
to Iraq's oil following their invasion in 1991 and post invasion costs of
rebuilding Iraq following the 2003 invasion will be in the tens, if not
hundreds of billions of dollars. Given the devastation an invasion causes, it
was always likely that the bulk of Iraq's oil revenue would continue to go
towards rebuilding Iraq, rather than reimbursing the U.S. treasury for the
costs of the invasion.
It is true that there are
many untapped oil reserves in Iraq and it is also true that oil related
contracts were issued to US companies following the invasion. Halliburton for
instance, an oil services company which was formerly run by US Vice-President
Dick Cheney, was awarded a contract by the US government to operate in post-war
Iraq worth an estimated $900M. However, if oil was the prime rationale for
invading Iraq, the policies enacted in the aftermath would have supported that
aim. Instead there were actions taken that hindered retrieving the oil, such as
disbanding the army, disbanding the police, not managing the flow of possible
insurgents through the borders and alienating the Iraqi people. The chaos,
internal unrest and the emergence of numerous "insurgent groups" is
not conducive to restoring and running businesses extracting and exporting oil.
The events of 9/11 needed to be avenged.
Revenge, although a common
cry from politicians and citizens alike, is never a reasonable rationale for
entering a war but there was, at the time, significant pressure put on the
Governments to quickly avenge the horrific events of 9/11.
The US Government,
together with their all to quick to agree coalition partners, had singled out
the Taliban as the culprit. Furthermore they identified Osama Bin Laden as the
leader and planner of the attacks (despite evidence to the contrary). However,
having identified the Osama Bin Laden led Taliban as the perpetrators of 9/11
would the US invade Iraq? There was no evidence of the Taliban or Osama Bin
Laden being protected by Saddam's regime. In fact, as mentioned previously,
Saddam and the Taliban were closer to being enemies than co-conspirators. The
Taliban were based in Afghanistan and had support from Pakistan. They were not
in Iraq and despite President George W Bush's assertions that there was a
working relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda no solid proof of
collaboration between them on the 9/11 attacks has emerged.
It was a key component of the plan for a New World Order
This reason is often put
forward by those suspecting that the small group of rich and powerful
individuals, sometimes referred to as The Elite, The Illuminati or the
Bilderbergers, have a plan to create a New World Order to rule over the globe.
Any such claim is quickly debunked by learned professionals and media but, for
the sake of this exercise, let us examine the possibility that the invasion of
Iraq forms part of a grand plan.
IRAQ INVASION AS PART OF A GRAND PLAN
The United States of
America are undisputedly the world's number one "Superpower" and it
is a natural tendency to want to hold that position indefinitely. One of the
stated Guiding Principles of the US is to "deter potential adversaries and
provide a hedge against other risks and contingencies". The growth of
other "Superpowers" is seen as a possible end to US domination and
they will use any and all means available to ensure that any emerging
superpower is "managed" so as not to impact the US in a negative way.
They understand that the other powers must emerge, China, Russia, Brazil and
India for example, and these emerging superpowers must be integrated into the
Western economy so they can pose no threat to US interests.
The Middle East has long
been a potential superpower. This fact may whispered in hallways rather than
spoken publicly but the huge oil deposits in Saudi Arabia and Iraq alone places
the Middle East in a position of a potential Superpower. Should Syria, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia and Iran become a united force along the same lines that the USSR
once was then they would become a global force simply through the control of a
major portion of the worlds oil resources.
Impossible?
Imagine for a moment what
power the Middle East would wield if it simply formed an alliance similar to
the BRICS alliance. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have formed
an alliance primarily focussed on economic and trading grounds and has
signalled the need for a new global reserve currency to displace the US dollar.
The biggest developing powers in the world combining to make decisions based on
their best interests without the involvement of the US? A simple alliance
between Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Syria would have a major impact on the
control of the global economy. Saddam was also starting to call for the Middle
East to unite. He called Arab Summits and highlighted the US and Israel as the
enemy rather than other Arab nations. Is it possible that the worst fear of the
US was becoming a potential reality?
Given the fact that I
could find no relevant material on a strategy to halt any unity of the oil
producing Arab nations, no published opinion and no reference to the
possibility, it must be far fetched. Right? But these countries share
fundamental religious beliefs, albeit split into two major sub religions, they
share a common history in many aspects and they share many similarities of
daily life. From an outsider looking in, they seem to have more in common than
differences. A possible alliance of Middle Eastern countries must have appeared
in US strategy documents at some stage. The US produce strategies and scenarios
on every contingency and possible threat. Billions of dollars is spent annually
on investigating, analysing and strategising foreign powers and reports are
produced for every contingency. There must be documents and reports analysing
the possibility of a united Middle East and its potential impact on the US but
alas, if they exist at all, they must be classified.
 |
| Religion in Iraq |
Of course there is another
inhabitant of the region that is vehemently opposed to all Arabic Nations in
the Middle East - Israel.
Avi Shlaim, in The Middle
East: The Origins of Arab-Israeli Wars, explains the origins of the conflict:
"The conflict between Israel and the Arabs is one of the most
profound and protracted conflicts of the twentieth century and the principal
precipitant of wars in the Middle East. There are two major dimensions to this
conflict: the Israeli-Palestinian dimension and the Israeli-Arab dimension. The
origins of the conflict go back to the end of the nineteenth century when the
Zionist movement conceived the idea of building a national home for the Jewish
people in Palestine. This project met with bitter opposition on the part of the
Arab population of the country. The upshot was a clash between two national
movements for possession of Palestine. There were two peoples and one land,
hence the conflict.
"The neighbouring Arab states became involved in this conflict on
the side of the Palestinian Arabs in the 1930s. After the creation of the State
of Israel in 1948, the main weight of the conflict shifted from the local or
inter-communal level to the inter-state level. In 1967 the conflict was further
complicated by Israel's capture of the West Bank from Jordan, the Golan heights
from Syria and the Sinai peninsula from Egypt. From this point on, these states
had a direct territorial dispute with Israel quite apart from their commitment
to the Palestinian cause."
When Israel was created it
took control of 78% of the historic Palestine leaving only 22% to the
Palestinian inhabitants. That 22% has now been reduced to less than 10% remaining
on the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is continually expanding, particularly into
the more desirable parts of the West Bank,
This reveals powerful and
influential ally to the United States in ensuring that the Middle East does not
become a united group but instead is maintained as a rabble of Arabs driven to
sectarian wars, invasions and clashes. Ali Abunimah, in Yearning for World War
IV: The Israeli-Iraq connection, lists three ways in which Israel would gain by
the Iraq invasion. First, it would eliminate Iraq as a potential rival. Second,
it would increase "the already deep alienation between Arab and American
societies" and Thirdly, the U.S. war against Iraq would provide the
Israeli government cover to crack down even harder on the Palestinians.
If we look at US actions
in the Middle East from the Iraq invasion until now, we can see either an
unconnected number of incidents that make no sense for a country that possesses
the finest surveillance technology and analysts or we see the implementation of
a strategy that, on this occasion, serves the interests of both Israel and the
US. Seemingly unrelated events that don't make sense if the strategy is to
ensure a peaceful Middle East.
Space does not allow a
complete list but take for instance a small number of events that points to
either a series of unrelated knee jerk reactions or a complex plan.
US supports and supplies
weapons to Iraq for the war against Iran but also supplies Iran with weapons to
fight Iraq.
US provide Iraq with
crucial intelligence to enable Iraq to bomb strategic sites in Iran.
US shoots down a civilian
Iran flight killing 290 people.
CIA partners with Jordan
to infiltrate Iraq.
Saddam holds Arab Summits
to try and unite the Middle East pointing to US and Israel as the common
enemies.
US invades Iraq to remove
Saddam.
US supports the elected
Iraqi government although Sunnis largely boycott the election.
US watches from afar as
the US approved Iraqi government proceeds to terrorise and kill the Sunni
population of Iraq.
US brands the elected
leader of Syria as a "dictator" and arms rebels to overthrow the
government.
US supports Iran to quell
the ISIS uprising in Iraq.
US signals it's intention
to bomb ISIS strongholds in Iraq and includes Syria as a target.
The US and EU involvement
in uprisings, rebellions, coups, attempted coups and conflicts across the
Middle East is hard to deny. The actions taken that prolong and intensify Sunni
and Shia conflict have certainly been effective in ensuring there is little
possibility of a united Middle East in our lifetimes. The agendas and
strategies of the US and Israel seem to overlap, at least concerning the Middle
East.
 |
| Overview of Sunni and Shia religion in the Middle East - iranreview.org |
CONCLUSION
So, the answer to the
question of "Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003?" Is either:
1) Just another bad
decision in a long line of bad decisions of the US Government taken in haste
without much thought or strategy, or
2) Part of a brilliantly
conducted strategy to ensure the Middle East never unites and never understands
how much power it could have if it ever united.
If we take a
"helicopter" view of the Middle East as at today we will see rebels,
insurgents, jihadists, freedom fighters, Islamic extremists, etc, in Syria,
Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon and more. Israel, of course, has also been in never
ending battles with Arabs for decades. There are no Middle Eastern countries
that are "conflict free" and when there seems to be a peace settling
somewhere, a mosque will be burnt, a shrine destroyed or a massacre will occur.
The sectarian violence of Sunni versus Shia is being perpetuated while the
Western world shakes its head and says "That's the Middle East". We
take it for granted that the religious differences between Shiite and Sunni
naturally ends in violence and death. We take it for granted that Israel and
Palestine will war until there are no Palestinians left. We take it for granted
that the Syrian election, held under almost identical conditions as Ukraine,
does not represent the views of the people of Syria. We allow the media to
explain to us who is bad and who is good in this never ending reality show that
is the Middle East.
Is the West's involvement
in the Middle East really is a series of bungles, mistakes and bad decisions
being poorly executed? If so then why are we not impeaching Reagan, Bush,
Obama, Cameron and all? Why aren't we arresting Wolfawitz, Rumsfield, Cheney
and other bunglers?
Or is the West's
involvement in the Middle East actually a carefully planned strategy that is
being executed with precision.
Is that really so hard to believe?
 |
Comments
Post a Comment
Feel free to comment. Trolls not welcome.