# Iraq



## Rhisiart (Nov 29, 2006)

Time to split the country into three? 

Yes, the Sunnis won't like it as they may end up with the bit of land with the least oil.

However, as they seem to have given everyone the hardest time, maybe it would be justice.

The coalition forces and other tribes may have blood on their hands, but the Sunni insurgents/Ba'athist/Al Quada 'triad' have been far the most brutal*.

[*I am sure everyone knows, the Ba'ath party was always largely made up of Sunnis, Furthermore, Al Quada hate the Shias].


----------



## ora (Nov 30, 2006)

Well it was a made up country in the fist place, a Brit invention to help carve up the mid-east. Might work on some level to break it into 3 but equally there would be major arguments about natural resources.

Also, I know the Turks may object to a Kurdish state on their border, when they've been trying to stop an ethnic Kurdish state appearing from  since the days of Ataturk, rather they want a national Turkish state.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Nov 30, 2006)

I'm with Rhisiart on that one.

The British invention of Iraq after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, knocking together Mosul, Mesopotamia and Basra has caused nothing but trouble since the 1920s!


----------



## AhhChoo (Dec 5, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> Time to split the country into three?



Is it time for WHO to split up Iraq?  The US? The UK? The US installed puppet Iraqi "government"?  Is it the right of ANY outside forces to split that country up?
Iraq did not really have a history of internecine/factional fighting prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation.  The current intra-Iraqi carnage was intentionally and surreptitiously instigated by occupying forces who now see to it that it continues(divide and conquer.....the more Iraqis fight amonst themselves, the less focus they can bring to unifying and fighting the forces of occupation).
Remember the incident when British troops dressed in Arab garb and carrying explosives were apprehended by Iraqi police?
It's up to the Iraqi people themselves and no one else to decide the future of their country.  That can't happen until occupying forces leave, and, perhaps, some form of peace keeping group indigenous to the Middle East and acceptable to the Iraqis is put into place.


----------



## reed (Dec 5, 2006)

Pulling out is frustrating but so is making an unwanted child. Either way there will be triplets. Who the father will be is another question. Certain folks are going to look away when she pushes the pram....or prams. Like Israel and Palestine there will be no guilty party. Only "Parties." 
 Ch. de Gaulle once said concering such matters (though less dramatic) in his own country...  "Vaste programme"
  What's the latest update "over there" by the way? SIGH!


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 5, 2006)

AhhChoo said:


> Is it the right of ANY outside forces to split that country up?


No, I don't think it is. You're right. It's up to the Iraqi people. But perhaps there is no harm in suggesting the idea. It might be a solution. 

The Iraq war has been an unmitigated disaster on the same scale as Vietnam. However, your statement that there was no infighting before the invasion needs closer inspection.

The Sunni Ba&#8217;athists, which have always been a minority in Iraq, brutalised the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south for over twenty years. 

What Bush and Blair failed to realise is that if you cut off the head of the Ba&#8217;athist party (i.e. Saddam), it then grows a thousand new heads.


----------



## eric2006 (Dec 5, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> Time to split the country into three?


For a second there, I thought you were talking about the US. It sure seems like people want to sometimes.


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 6, 2006)

eric2006 said:


> For a second there, I thought you were talking about the US. It sure seems like people want to sometimes.


Actually a Welsh military invasion of the US is planned for next March (subject to approval from the local vicar). We intend to split the US into 50 parts. We think this could be revolutionary.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Dec 6, 2006)

I'm not sure the Welsh could even manage to invade the local chip shop


----------



## AhhChoo (Dec 6, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> .....But perhaps there is no harm in suggesting the idea. It might be a solution.



Those in positions of influence in the West who are promoting the carving up of Iraq are certainly not concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people.  No, their only concern is what's best for western(primarily US) interests, i.e, controlling Iraq's oil and ensuring the US geopolitical/military dominance in that part of the world.
If Iraq were split up, be assured that many Iraqis would take up the fight to reunify their country.
(and, of course, Turkey is shitting bricks at the prospect of a Kurdish state)
Another salient point to consider, is that by intentionally instigating the Iraqi on Iraqi carnage, the west would thereby be creating an artificial pretext for breaking Iraq into parts, and thereby conceal their real reasons for implementing the carving up of that country.



> However, your statement that there was no infighting before the invasion needs closer inspection.



The Baathist regime, using their military, ruthlessly intervened to prevent any groups (Kurds in the north and Shias in the South) from "making waves".
But Iraq just didn't have the kind of widespread "tribal" level carnage that one sees today, kidnappings, murders, explosives planted in mosques and market places,
neighborhood against neighborhood, village against village, faction against faction.

The US intends for a permanent presence in Iraq; it's building huge, well fortified, permanent military bases in the Iraqi desert, well away from Iraqi population centers, and the worlds largest embassy complex in Baghdad, a 1.5 billion dollar, 104 acre affair.  The US still firmly views Iraq as a central fixture in its plans to dominate that part of the world, current talk of US troop reduction, there, not withstanding.

I urge  those interested in understanding events in the near and middle east to read -  *The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,
by Zbigniew Brzezinski * http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessbo..._bbs_sr_1/102-3109306-9333755?ie=UTF8&s=books
Brzezinski was US national security adviser under the Carter administration.  A brilliant but diabolical mind, he promotes the case for US hegemony in the world.
His book was published in 1998; read it in light of what is now transpiring in the near/middle east vis a vis the US.  It all fits together beautifully.


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 6, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:


> I'm not sure the Welsh could even manage to invade the local chip shop&#8230;


We haven't even got a local chip shop .... (man what I would do for a kebab shop next to the pub for Friday evenings).


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 6, 2006)

AhhChoo said:


> But Iraq just didn't have the kind of widespread "tribal" level carnage that one sees today, kidnappings, murders, explosives planted in mosques and market places, neighborhood against neighborhood, village against village, faction against faction.


No, it was just a different form of carnage, equally deadly.

Mind you, I agree with your views on US geopolitical intentions.


----------



## reed (Dec 15, 2006)

An interesting analysis of the Baker Commission's high stakes effort to wrest control of U.S. foreign policy from the "crazies" who were marginalized under Bush I only to find a willing host in Bush II. This is a rich drama we see unfolding.  It is a much more accelated and visible manifestation of the displeasure of American financial elites that marked a turning point in the Vietnam War almost 40 years ago.  James Baker and his collection of elders (with calculated self deprecation he called his colleagues "has beens" at last week's news conference) have been orchestrating on the national stage an intervention focused not only on an increasingly isolated George W. Bush but his remaining enablers among the government, media and think tank elites. We may have Baker's commission to thank for making a unilateral strike against Iran, possibly including nuclear weapons, a little more difficult to pull off in 2007.   



On one side we have James Baker and his corporate classmates who want to restore order while preserving America's imperial role in the region. And, on the other side, we have the neo-Trotskyites and Israeli-Jacobins who seek a fragmented and chaotic Middle East where Israel is the dominant power.  The one group that has no voice in this "Battle of the Titans" is the American people. They lost whatever was left of their shrinking political-clout sometime around the 2000 Coronation of George Bush.  In any event, Baker and his ilk are not going to sit back and watch the empire (and the military) they put together with their own two hands be systematically pulverized by a cabal of zealots pursuing an agenda that only serves Israeli hardliners. 



James Baker Versus the Lobby 
by Mike Whitney
Counterpunch
The tension between the Bush administration and the members of the Iraq Study Group, illustrates the widening chasm between old-guard U.S. imperialists and "Israel-first" neoconservatives. The divisions are setting the stage for a major battle between the two camps. The winner will probably decide US policy in the Middle East for the next decade. 

The failed occupation of Iraq has put the entire region on the fast-track to disaster. That's why James Baker was summoned from retirement to see if he could change the present trajectory and mitigate the long-term damage to US interests. Baker was opposed to the invasion from the onset but his 4 day trip to Baghdad convinced him that something had to be done quickly. The ISG report reflects the unanimous view of its authors that Iraq is disintegrating into chaos and that action must be taken to reduce the level of bloodshed. 

Baker is not merely an objective observer in this process. He clearly "has a dog in this fight". As Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan he put together the basic scaffolding for America's imperial presence in the region and he continues to be connected to many of the corporations which benefit from US relations in the Middle East. But he has also always taken a "pragmatic" approach to regional policy and cannot be considered a war-monger. Some critics of Baker say that his business interests suggest that he indirectly supports the Bush policy. But this is an oversimplification. In fact, Baker sees war as a blunt instrument that is essentially incompatible with commercial interests. There are simply more efficient ways for clever men to achieve their objectives. 

In Antonia Juhasz's recent article "Oil for Sale: Iraq Study Group Recommends Privatization" shows how Baker was more than happy to overlook Saddam's domestic repression as long as it didn't damage business dealings. As Juhasz's says: 

"Baker's interest was focused on trade, which he described as "the central factor in the US-Iraq relationship". From 1982, when Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism until August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Baker and Eagleburger worked with others in the Reagan and Bush administrations to aggressively and successfully expand trade. 

The efficacy of such a move can best be described in a memo written in 1988 by the Bush transition team arguing that the US would have to decide whether to treat Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to be shunned where possible, or to recognize Iraq's present and potential power in the region and accord it relatively high priority. We strongly urge the latter view.' Two reasons offered were Iraq's vast oil reserves' which promised a lucrative market for US goods' and the fact that the US oil imports from Iraq were skyrocketing. Bush and Baker took the transition teams advice and ran with it". 

This is the real James Baker. He's not ideological and he's certainly not on a religious crusade. His approach may seem cynical, but it shows that he prefers commerce (even with a brutal dictator) over war. This proves that his role with the ISG is not simply to provide cover for Bush. Baker's task is to salvage the imperial system which he helped to create. Besides, it's clear that Bush is unhappy with the report and has already rejected its two critical recommendations; negotiations with Syria and Iran, and a commitment to troop reduction. Furthermore, Bush is doing everything in his power to minimize the effects of the report. In fact, he even flew Tony Blair to Washington so that he wouldn't look as isolated in his position. 

Baker has done a good job grabbing headlines and making his case directly to the American people, but his effect on Bush has been negligible. Bush appears to be brushing the report aside just like he brushed aside the results of the midterm elections. His summation of the ISG's work was intentionally condescending; he dismissed it as "interesting" and "sincere", blah, blah, blah. 

But Baker won't be patronized or put-off. In fact, his tone has been unusually threatening at times. As more than one critic has noted, Baker appears to be offering Bush an "ultimatum" not merely recommendations. He warned Bush not to "pick and choose" the recommendations as he saw fit: 

"I hope this is not like a fruit salad and I say I like this but I don't like that. This is a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with this problem we're facing in Iraq, but also designed to deal with other problems that we face in the region to restore America's standing and credibility in that part of the world". 

Baker is courteous to the point of seeming unctuous, but his point is clear. He is demanding that Bush execute his plan in its totality and without deviation. This is the cautionary advice of a Mafia consigliore not the empty musings of a retired bureaucrat. 

Whatever one thinks about James Baker, he is a seasoned diplomat and a serious man. His record shows that he has broad support among the leaders in the American oligarchy, so he can't simply be ignored. He represents a powerful constituency of corporate chieftains and oil magnates who are conspicuously worried about the deteriorating situation in Iraq and want to see a change of course. Baker's their man. He's the logical emissary for the growing number of jittery plutocrats who see that the Bush policy-train has jumped the tracks. 

But if Big Oil wants a change of direction than where is Bush getting his support for "staying the course"? 

An AP poll conducted this week shows that only 9% of Americans believe that "victory" in Iraq is possible. Even the hard-core Bush loyalists have abandoned the sinking ship. The only group left touting Bush's failed policy is the "Israel first" camp which continues to wave the bloody shirt of incitement from their perch at the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute. These same diehards are leading the charge for a preemptive attack on Iran; a criminal act which will have catastrophic effects on America's long-term energy needs. 

An article which appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz shows how confident Prime Minister Olmert is in the ability of the Jewish Lobby to torpedo the Baker-Hamilton report and steer the US away from changes in Iraq: 

"On his way home from Los Angeles, the Prime Minister calmed' the reporters and perhaps even himself"by saying there is no danger of the US President George Bush accepting the expected recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton panel, and attempting to move Syria out of the axis of evil and into a coalition to extricate America from Iraq. The Prime Minister hopes the Jewish Lobby can rally a Democratic majority in the new Congress to counter any diversion from the status quo on the Palestinians. (Akiva Eldar, "The Gewalt Agenda") 

Olmert has good reason to be "calm". While the new Congress is being apprised of its duties to Israel, the Brookings Institute is convening a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy entitled: "America and Israel: Confronting a Middle east in Turmoil". The meeting will be attended by Israeli right-wing extremist, Avigdor Lieberman, as well as political big-wigs, Bill and Hillary Clinton. 

The context of the meeting suggests that right-leaning Israelis will be informing their friends in the Democratic Party about the anticipated attack on Iran, as well as discussing strategies for sabotaging Baker's report. If we see the Democrats lambasting the ISGs recommendations next week; we'll know why. 

So, the battle lines have been drawn. On one side we have James Baker and his corporate classmates who want to restore order while preserving America's imperial role in the region. And, on the other side, we have the neo-Trotskyites and Israeli-Jacobins who seek a fragmented and chaotic Middle East where Israel is the dominant power. (see "A Clean Break") 

The one group that has no voice in this "Battle of the Titans" is the American people. They lost whatever was left of their shrinking political-clout sometime around the 2000 Coronation of George Bush. 

In any event, Baker and his ilk are not going to sit back and watch the empire (and the military) they put together with their own two hands be systematically pulverized by a cabal of zealots pursuing an agenda that only serves Israeli hardliners. 

That ain't gonna happen. 

Expect Baker to wheel out the heavy artillery and fight tooth-and-nail to reassert the primacy of the American ruling class. "The Lobby" may be powerful, but it's going to be tough-going to take the country away from the people who believe they own it. 

The struggle between the political heavyweights is about to break-out into open warfare.


----------



## reed (Dec 15, 2006)

Found this on Onion.com


----------

