"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great country. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland" - Adolf Hitler (1933)
"My head also tells me that al-Qaida's a serious threat to our homeland," Bush, 7/12/7 news conference
BACKGROUND: IRAQ & ENTIRE GULF REGION IS CENTRAL TO U.S. GLOBAL GEOSTRATEGY
Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival'
NYT March 8, 1992
Following are excerpts from the Pentagon's Feb. 18 draft of the Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999: This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation which has been created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic "zone of peace."
1996 A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Following is the policy blueprint prepared for incoming Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu by The U.S. Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated.
1997: THE GRAND CHESSBOARD: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives
1997 A geostrategy for Eurasia, by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Foreign Affairs,76:5, September/October 1997 Council on Foreign Relations
1997 US Army War College: "WE HAVE ENTERED AN AGE OF CONSTANT CONFLICT'
1999 The Brookings Institution: China, Russia, Middle East, OIL & U.S. Geostrategy for Global Domination: China's Changing Oil Strategy and its Foreign Policy Implications
...the Middle East's share of China's oil imports, fluctuating roughly about 50%, could conceivably grow to 80% or more in the year 2010. Henceforth, with such a heavy dependence on the Middle East for oil, U.S. strategic domination over the entire region, including the whole lane of sea communications from the strait of Hormuz, will be perceived as the primary vulnerability of China's energy supply. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the key objective of China's oil strategy will be to avoid this strategic vulnerability.
Jean-François Susbielle, French author wrote a book titled Chine-USA, La Guerre Programmée claiming the USA invaded Iraq in 2003 to have power over as many major oil fields as possible so as to control China’s access to oil....China is a strategic challenge that must be contained....
''China's Distant Threat to U.S. Dominance in Asia''
"China's Demand for Energy is Reshaping Power Structures Around the World"
Drafted by Adam Wolfe on February 25, 2004
China 'Frankenstein threat' to US
Critics point to China's rising military power and ask who it might be aimed at. China has come in for heavy criticism from members of the US House of Representatives with one congressman labeling the country a "Frankenstein" created by the US that now threatens American interests...
The Chinese Century
By TED C. FISHMAN
July 4, 2004
China is poised for similar growth in this century. Even if China's people do not, on average, have the wealth Americans do, and even if the United States continues to play a strong economic game and to lead in technology, China will still be an ever more formidable competitor. If any country is going to supplant the U.S. in the world marketplace, China is it. ...
Opponents of China's support for Sudan joined the committee hearing [GALLO/GETTY]
Giving testimony to the committee, John Negroponte, the US deputy secretary of state, said China needed to be "more open about its military budget, doctrine, and intentions".
The motives behind China's military build-up are unclear and are of concern to both the US and China's neighbours, he said.
Negroponte is the chief adviser to Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, on China and the rest of Asia...
IRAQ: THE MEDIA WAR PLAN
A January 2003 Pentagon White Paper recommended the creation of a "Rapid Reaction Media Team" for Iraq.
White Paper and PowerPoint Briefing on "a critical interim rapid response component of the USG's strategic information campaign for Iraq - in the event hostilities are required to liberate Iraq."
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 219
Edited by Joyce Battle,
May 8, 2007
PNAC.info 1958-1991, Iraq: A Classic Case of Divide and Conquer
The CIA plotted Kassem’s assassination and U.S. generals in Turkey devised a
military plan, called “Canonbone,” to invade northern Iraq and seize its oil
Arabic News Weekly Edition for Iraq, 2/9/1998
Arab diplomatic sources revealed that there is a British - US plan to divide Iraq after striking it, starting by establishing a Kurdish state...
COHEN VISIT TO GULF: MIXED RESPONSE TOWARD U.S. POLICY ON IRAQ
March 11, 1999
Amman's influential Al-Dustur: "Cohen comes with plans to divide up Iraq, while Indyk comes with plans for wasting time" in reactivating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
2003 CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS
OIL: WMD TO LEVERAGE GLOBAL CONTROL
U.S. record of world reserves of oil and natural gas
Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy
Manoeuvres shaped by horsetrading between America, Russia and France over control of untapped oilfields
Ed Vulliamy in New York, Paul Webster in Paris, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Sunday October 6, 2002
Washington's predatory interest in Iraqi oil is clear.... The US National Energy Policy Report of 2001 - known as the 'Cheney Report' after its author Vice President Dick Cheney, formerly one of America's richest and most powerful oil industry magnates - demanded a priority on easing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.
A Russian official at the United Nations in New York told the Observer last week that the $7 billion in Soviet-era debt was not the main 'economic interest' in Iraq about which the Kremlin is voicing its concerns. The main fear was a post-Saddam government would not honour extraction contracts Moscow has signed with Iraq.
US control of the Iraqi reserves, perhaps the biggest unmapped reservoir in the world, would break Saudi Arabia's hold on the oil-pricing cartel Opec, and dictate prices for the next century.
This could spell disaster for Russian oil giants, keen to expand their sales to the West. Russia has sought to prolong negotiations, official statements going between opposition to any new UN resolution and possible support for military action against an Iraqi regime proven to be developing weapons of mass destruction.
While France is thought likely to support US military action, and China will probably fall in line because of its admission to the World Trade Organisation, Putin is left holding the wild cards.
Russia recognises potential benefits of reaching a deal with the US: Saddam's regime is difficult to work with. Lukoil's billion-dollar concessions are frozen and profitless to Moscow and Baghdad under UN sanctions, leading to fears that Saddam might have declared the agreement null and void out of spite. Iraqi diplomats say Zarubezhneft won its $90bn contract only after Baghdad took it away from TotalFinaElf because of French support for sanctions.
Russia stands to profit if intervention in the Gulf triggers a hike in Middle East oil prices, as its firms are lobbying to sell millions of barrels a day to the US, at two-thirds of the current market price.
Moscow's trust of Washington may be slipping after what a Russian UN official calls 'broken promises' that followed negotiations over Moscow's support for the Afghan campaign.
Russia turned a blind eye to US troops in central Asia, on the tacit condition that US-Russian trade restrictions would be lifted. But they are still there, and other benefits expected after 11 September have also not materialised. 'They've been making this point very strongly,' a senior Bush administration official conceded to the Washington Post , 'that this can't be an all-give-and-no-get relationship... They do have a point that the growing relationship has got to be reciprocal.'
Prelude to the invasion:
After the conclusion of the Gulf War of 1991, the U.S., the UK, and the international community maintained a policy of “containment” towards Iraq. This policy involved numerous and crushing economic sanctions
In October 1998, U.S. policy began to shift away from containment and towards “regime change,” as the U.S. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act."
With the election of George W. Bush as U.S. President in 2000, the U.S. moved towards a more active policy of “regime change” in Iraq. ... former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq was planned since the inauguration and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion. O'Neill later backtracked, saying that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.
U.S. Considers Dividing Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam Is Gone
FORECASTS & TRENDS, Oct 1, 2002 http://www.profutures.comarticle.php/91/%20
Stratfor.com http://www.stratfor.com/ reports that one of the leading long-term strategies being considered by US war planners is to divide Iraq into three separate regions. Under this plan Iraq would cease to exist.
U.S. 2002 Pre-invasion Plan to Divide Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam.
by Gary D. Halbert www.profutures.com.
Global Research Editor's Note:
The following text was first published in October 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq. It suggests that dividing up Iraq along ethnic lines and redrawing national borders was part of the US foreign policy/military agenda prior to the onslaught of the war.
October 1, 2002
1. Stratfor's Latest Intelligence On Iraq.
2. Iraq Is Too Big For One New Government.
3. US Would Divide Into Three Separate States.
4. Central Iraq (Sunnis) Would Join With Jordan
5. The Shia Region Would Join With Kuwait.
6. The Kurds Get Their Own State In The North.
7. Iraq Ceases To Exist; Baghdad No Longer Capital.
8. Investment Market Implications.
A US war against Iraq appears to be only a matter of when, not if, despite the latest rumblings from a few high-level Democrats who oppose the idea. The latest Zogby poll shows that 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is a legitimate threat to the safety and security of the United States, compared to 25% who believe Hussein is just another ruler whose policies are anti-American. Most Americans also have little doubt that we will win a war with Iraq handily, complete with the removal of Saddam Hussein.
But the question I have been most interested in is whether there is any group in Iraq that can successfully manage and govern that country after Saddam and his thugs are removed from power. It would be a terrible mistake for the US to clean out Saddam & Company, only to see the country fall back into the hands of tyrants, especially religious extremists who are sympathetic to al Qaeda, in another year or two.
Most observers agree that there is no one group in Iraq who could successfully govern and manage it in the post-Saddam era, given its diverse population and different religions. Given that, what are the US and our allies to do?
STRATFOR.COM released a fascinating report last Friday. Stratfor.com is one of the most respected geopolitical intelligence services in the world. Stratfor's high-level sources tell them that one of the leading long-term strategies being considered by US war planners is one that will DIVIDE Iraq into three separate regions. Under this plan Iraq would CEASE TO EXIST.
Stratfor believes the plan would divide Iraq as follows:
The central and largest part of Iraq that is populated by the Sunni Arabs would be joined with JORDAN to form one "United Hashemite Kingdom," which would be ruled by Jordan's King Abdullah. This area would include Baghdad, which would no longer be the capital.
The Kurdish region of northern and northwestern Iraq, including Mosul and the vast Kirkuk oilfields, would become its own autonomous state.
The Shia Region in southwestern Iraq, including Basra, would make up the third state, or more likely it would be joined with Kuwait.
Stratfor's sources indicate that the plan to divide (and thus eliminate) Iraq as described above is not the only plan under consideration, and it is also not finalized. However, such a plan makes a lot of sense to me.
Stratfor says that such a plan reportedly was discussed at an unusual meeting between Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and pro-US Iraqi Sunni opposition members in London in July. Further, they say that in September, the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, stated that the US goal in Iraq was to create a United Hashemite Kingdom that would encompass Jordan and Iraq's Sunni areas. Also, Israeli terrorism expert Ehud Sprinzak recently echoed this sentiment on Russian television on September 24.
So whose idea is this? According to Stratfor, Sprinzak stated that the authors of the "Hashemite" plan are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, both considered the most hawkish of Bush administration officials. That is not surprising.
Why Such A Plan Might Make Sense
As noted above, the Bush administration may be considering the proposal because the current goal of replacing Saddam Hussein with a pro-US Iraqi government still would not guarantee long-term democratic stability over the territory and its oil. It may become too hard for a new government in Baghdad to effectively control the whole country, even with US troop support. An example is Afghanistan, in which the government of President Hamid Karzai still controls only the capital...
Benefits To The US
According to Stratfor's sources and the Israeli media, the richest oil areas would go not to the Hashemite kingdom but to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. To make sure the new Kurdish state is not seen as a threat to Turkey, our ally, the US would deploy armed forces and build new military bases in the area, not only to prevent any hostilities along the border, but also to insure the free flow of oil from this area.
As a part of this plan, it is believed that the Bush administration would also negotiate new deals to build US military bases in the Hashemite kingdom and in the Shia Region to the south. This would be a huge development in the War On Terror. With US military bases in the three new states, the US would be in an ideal position should it choose in the future to go after Iran, Saudi Arabia or other states in the region that are supporting terrorism.
With Iraq divided as described above, with US aid and military assistance, and not to mention, huge oil revenues going into government coffers (as opposed to Saddam's pocketbook), this region could become very prosperous very quickly.
Benefits For Israel And Jordan
Stratfor suggests that the division of Iraq, as described above, will reap big benefits for both Israel and Jordan. Iraq, arguably Israel's most determined enemy, would be eliminated. The end of Saddam's regime would also deprive the Palestinians of much financial and other assistance, which could reduce the effectiveness of their attacks against the Jewish state.
King Abdullah of Jordan would vastly expand his role and prominence in the region with a joint Hashemite state, becoming the second-most important US ally in the region after Israel. In addition to his huge territorial gains, he also would get a chunk of Iraqi oil. And Palestinians, who currently make up half of Jordan's population, would become a minority in the new state, with much less potential to stir up trouble.
Difficult, But Not Impossible
Stratfor is quick to admit that the division plan above may not be the final strategy. Others are on the table as well. Stratfor also acknowledges that the plan will be difficult to achieve, and there are obviously some risks. Certainly, it will be difficult to get the various factions in Iraq to agree to the new arrangement. Obviously, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and perhaps others in the region, will have major heartburn over such a plan. Stratfor cautions that even Turkey could have a problem with this plan. In addition, Stratfor says:
"The plan may not be free of negative consequences for Washington, however. Iraq's Shia majority -- whose anti-Hussein opposition seems currently divided between the United States and Iran -- probably would not agree to become a part of the new kingdom. Iran may interfere by urging Iraqi Shias to join with Tehran. Washington might counter by agreeing to attach the Shia Iraqi region to Kuwait, Israeli media speculates. Turkey, despite a U.S. military presence in Kurdish areas, still might have reservations about the plan. Finally, it is unclear how Sunni tribal and other leaders inside Iraq would react."
As noted at the beginning, I believe a plan that involves splitting Iraq into separate entities is a very good idea. Assuming Saddam's regime is toppled, it will still be very difficult, if not impossible, for any one faction to control the entire country. If the plan includes provisions for permanent US military facilities in the new states, that will make the prosecution of the War On Terror much easier.
There are certainly arguments against a permanent US military presence in the region. Some will argue that we are setting ourselves up for another Vietnam-like conflict that could last many years. And there will be plenty of other negatives voiced if this plan is actually adopted.
Yet in the end, some type of plan that splits Iraq and eliminates Baghdad as the capital may be the best long-term solution, as Stratfor suggests.
U.S.IRAQ EXIT STRATEGY: CIVIL WAR
By Pepe Escobar
The plan [to break up Iraq] allegedly conceived by David Philip, a former White House adviser working for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC)[...]
The U.S. will... work to dissolve the Iraqi nation and state into three independent statelets under a powerless sham national government and, of course, total U.S. control (...) As Col. Lang emphasizes, the seeds for partioning were laid when Cheney and the neocon figures around him ordered the Iraqi army to be disbanded and the de-Baathification of the Iraqi government, its total annulment. The idea of partitioning Iraq may even have been the very reason for the war. The New Middle East expression goes back to the [see above] 1996 "Clean Break" document (pdf) prepared by U.S. as a strategy for Israel's Netanyahu government. The first modern partition Iraq argument was made by Zionist strategist Oded Yinon in 1982. In A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties he recommends: In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. The now imminent, new policy of partitioning Iraq is indeed only the announcement of the result of a process that has been the plan and the policy all along. This is a real "Mission Accomplished" moment...
The Plan Was Always to Divide Iraq
Michel Collon, at iacenter.org , suggests that the US plan for Iraq was to divide it up into three mini-states 'and then pit them against one another'.
Collon suggests this was also the plan for Yugoslavia.
The New York Times, 25 November 2003, refers to the plan for Iraq by Leslie Gelb of the Council of Foreign Affairs.
The objective for the USA according to Gelb:
"To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly - with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences."
In 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."
In the case of Yugoslavia, according to Michel Collon:
"Berlin, and then Washington, discreetly financed and armed racist extremists, who were nostalgic for World War II.
"This made civil war almost inevitable because the IMF and the World Bank had plunged Yugoslavia into bankrupt to make it submit to triumphant neo-liberalism after the fall of the Berlin Wall...
"All of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia have been plunged into misery and unemployment, which is worse now than it has ever been.
"Meanwhile, multinational corporations have taken the upper hand in controlling the country's wealth...
"For Gelb, the civil war in Yugoslavia was a great success for the U.S. because it permitted the breakup of a country that resisted multinationals...
"Divide in order to conquer. As always.
"The Britons carefully organized the division of Ireland, India and Pakistan as well as other places in the world.
"The influential U.S. strategist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wants to divide Russia into three countries in order to isolate Moscow from oil reserves.
"The CIA also has its "own plans" to divide Saudi Arabia...
U.S. Plans to Run Iraqi Oil for A While
Published on Friday, April 11, 2003 by Reuters
The Defense Department is considering putting in place an advisory board of former U.S. oil industry executives to help run Iraq's oil industry, the head of which is likely to be Philip Carroll, a former chief executive of Shell Oil Co., sources said.
Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that Iraq's oil production could rise as much as 50 percent from 2002 levels by the end of the year if the country is given outside help in restoring its fields' capacity to pump crude... The country controls more than 112 billion barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia in proven reserves.
Sketching out a postwar scenario now that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein appears to have lost power, Cheney, a former oil company executive, spoke of "an organization to oversee the functioning of their oil ministry."
War on Iraq: Opinion
Contributing Editor Air Marshal (Retd) AYAZ AHMED KHAN
...why [is] Saddam Hussian considered a threat to US Security interests? The answer lies in Saddam Hussian’s mind set. According to Amir Taheri the celebrated Arab political analyst, Saddam Hussain’s political vision is the real threat to US and Western interests. What is Saddam’s vision? “Saddam Hussain’s vision is based on the basic assumption that there is a single Arab nation stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian ocean”. Saddam firmly believes in pan-Arabism and that is the real threat to Western interests. He is the only Arab leader capable of settling scores with Israel, for its barbarities and genocide of Palestinian Arabs. Amir Taheri states that, “At different times, history which determines the fate of nations chooses a leader with vision to assume leadership. As things stand today, it is the Iraqi part of the Arab nation that has been chosen by history to assume leadership.” American, Israeli and British intellectuals and politicians are aware that their designs for the oil in the oil rich Arab lands will be challenged if Saddam Hussian has a say in the region. This is the reason why Washington, Tel-Aviv and London want Saddam Hussian out of the way. They want to exploit the Arab oil wealth unhindered...
In an article titled “OPERATION ENDLESS DEPLOYMENT”, military analysts William D Hartung, Frida Berrigan and Michelle Ciarrocca state that, “The war on Iraq is part of the larger US plan for global dominance...
“Under the guise of fighting “terrorists and tyrants”, US military has built, upgraded and expanded military facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Pentagon has authorized and expanded training missions or open ended troop deployments in Djibouti, Philippines and Georgia. Access has been negotiated to airfields in Kazakstan. The United States is engaged in major military exercises involving thousands of US military personnel in Jordan, Kuwait and India. (The writers forgot that ten thousand US military personnel are already stationed in Afghanistan). Thousands of tons of military equipment has been stock piled in Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf stations, including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait and Qatar. Discussions are underway for access to facilities in Yemen and establishing intelligence gathering installations to monitor “terrorist” activities in Sudan, and Somalia. The port of Aden is strategically located, and US Navy operations from Aden will help control of the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. Through secretive arrangements the US has a substantial military presence of sixty thousand (60,000) troops in the Gulf, Caucus and South Asia. Twenty five thousand US troops are already poised to serve as the first wave of US invasion of Iraq. Several thousand more are on the way. The US plan clearly is for flexible military infrastructure to initiate hot wars from the Middle East, the Gulf, the Caucus and East Asia”...
Bush's Mideast Plan: Conquer and Divide
Toronto Sun, December 8, 2002
Arms inspections are a "hoax," said Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, in a forthright and chilling interview with ABC News last week. "War is inevitable. Aziz is the smartest, most credible member of President Saddam Hussein's otherwise sinister regime-- my view after covering Iraq since 1976.
What the U.S. wants is not "regime change" in Iraq but rather "region change," charged Aziz. He tersely summed up the Bush administration's reasons for war against Iraq: "Oil and Israel."
Aziz's undiplomatic language underlines growing fears across the Mideast that U.S. President George Bush intends to use a manufactured war against Iraq to redraw the political map of the region, put it under permanent U.S. military control, and seize its vast oil resources.
These are not idle alarms.
Senior administration officials openly speak of invading Iran, Syria, Libya and Lebanon. Influential neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington have deployed a small army of "experts" on TV, urging the U.S. to remove governments deemed unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel.
Washington's most powerful lobbies - for oil and Israel - are urging the U.S. to seize Mideast oil and crush any regional states that might one day challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly or regional dominance.
The radical transformation of the Mideast being considered by the Bush administration is potentially the biggest political change since the notorious 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty in which victorious Britain and France carved up the Ottoman-ruled region.
Scenarios under review at the highest levels:
--Iraq is to be placed under U.S. military rule. Iraq's leadership, notably Saddam Hussein and Aziz, will face U.S. drumhead courts martial and firing squads.
--Iraq will be broken up into three semi-autonomous regions: Kurdish north; Sunni centre; Shia south. Iraq's oil will be exploited by U.S. and British firms. Iraq will become a major customer for U.S. arms. Turkey may get a slice of northern Iraq around the Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields. U.S. forces will repress any attempts by Kurds to set up an independent state. A military dictatorship or kingdom will eventually be created.
--The swift, ruthless crushing of Iraq is expected to terrify Arab states, Palestinians and Iran into obeying U.S. political dictates.
--Independent-minded Syria will be ordered to cease support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, and allow Israel to dominate Jordan and Lebanon, or face invasion and "regime change." The U.S. will anyway undermine the ruling Ba'ath regime and young leader, Bashir Assad, replacing him with a French-based exile regime. France will get renewed influence in Syria as a consolation prize for losing out in Iraq to the Americans and Brits. Historical note: in 1949, the U.S. staged its first coup in Syria, using Gen. Husni Zai'im to overthrow a civilian government.
--Iran will be severely pressured to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs or face attack by U.S. forces. Israel's rightist Likud party, which guides much of the Bush administration's Mideast thinking, sees Iran, not demolished Iraq, as its principal foe and threat, and is pressing Washington to attack Iran once Iraq is finished off. At minimum, the U.S. will encourage an uprising against Iran's Islamic regime, replacing it with either a royalist government or one drawn from U.S.-based Iranian exiles.
--Saudi Arabia will be allowed to keep the royal family in power, but compelled to become more responsive to U.S. demands and to clamp down on its increasingly anti-American population. If this fails, the CIA is reportedly cultivating senior Saudi air force officers who could overthrow the royal family and bring in a compliant military regime like that of Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Or, partition Saudi Arabia, making the oil-rich eastern portion an American protectorate.
--The most important Arab nation, Egypt - with 40% of all Arabs - will remain a bastion of U.S. influence. The U.S. controls 50% of Egypt's food supply, 85% of its arms and spare parts, and keeps the military regime of Gen. Hosni Mubarak in power. Once leader of the Arab world, Egypt is keeping a very low profile in the Iraq crisis, meekly co-operating with American war plans.
--Jordan is a U.S.-Israeli protectorate and its royal family, the Hashemites, are being considered as possible figurehead rulers of U.S.-occupied "liberated" Iraq; more remotely, for Saudi Arabia and/or Syria.
--The Gulf Emirates and Oman, former British protectorates and now American protectorates, are already, in effect, tiny colonies.
--Libya's madcap Col. Moammar Khadafy remains on Washington's black list and is marked for extinction once bigger game is bagged. The U.S. wants Libya's high-quality oil. Britain may reassert its former influence here.
--Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, short of revolution, will remain loyal western satraps under highly repressive, French-backed royalist and military regimes.
--Yemen's former British imperial base at Aden and former French base at Djibouti will become important permanent U.S. bases.
-The White House hopes Palestinians will be cowed by Iraq's destruction, and forced to accept U.S.-Israeli plans to become a self-governing, but isolated, native reservation surrounded by Israeli forces.
The lines drawn in the Mideast by old European imperial powers are now to be redrawn by the world's newest imperial power, the United States. But as veteran soldiers know, even the best strategic plans become worthless once real fighting begins.
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more."
President George W. Bush February 26, 2003
US PLANS TO PRESERVE IRAQS OIL FOR IRAQI PEOPLE , US Department of Defense
U.S. Plans to Run Iraqi Oil for A While
Published on Friday, April 11, 2003 by Reuters
The Defense Department is considering putting in place an advisory board of former U.S. oil industry executives to help run Iraq's oil industry, the head of which is likely to be Philip Carroll, a former chief executive of Shell Oil Co., sources said.
Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that Iraq's oil production could rise as much as 50 percent from 2002 levels by the end of the year if the country is given outside help in restoring its fields' capacity to pump crude... The country controls more than 112 billion barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia in proven reserves.
Sketching out a postwar scenario now that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein appears to have lost power, Cheney, a former oil company executive, spoke of "an organization to oversee the functioning of their oil ministry."
3 U.S. administrators will run postwar Iraq
Pentagon taps two retired generals, ex-ambassador to Yemen
From Barbara Starr CNN
March 7, 2003
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government will divide Iraq into three sectors for civil administration when security is established after a war, sources tell CNN... The Bush administration has selected a U.S. government official to oversee each Iraqi ministry that the U.S. plans to keep running after the war, CNN has learned.
Each official will attempt to keep his or her ministry running with Iraqi civil servants. Some changes will be made, though, the sources said:
• The Iraqi Ministry of Information, which controls the state-run media, will be disbanded and restructured with free television, radio and print elements
• Sensitive ministries such as those overseeing justice and intelligence will be overhauled
• The Special Republican Guard and Republican Guard are to be disbanded, but the plan calls for maintaining the regular army and using its manpower during reconstruction
* The plan also calls for the U.S. administration team to run a Ministry of Religious Affairs that will oversee mosques and other religious activities, the sources said.
2004 Rand study “U.S. Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11”
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali, exec. editor American Muslim Perspective
Rand study titled “U.S. Strategy in the Muslim WorldAfter 9/11” suggests exploiting Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides to promote the US policy objectives inthe Muslim world. [...]
The invasion and occupation of Iraq: premeditated murderous aggression
By Ghali Hassan
The U.S. plan to divide Iraq—on ethnic and religious lines—and control its wealth was prepared several years before the war. It was no secret. ...
From the big lie of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) invented in Washington and London to the big lie of Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi, the alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind, resort to deception is the art of Western powers.
Despite mounting evidence that Al-Zarqawi was killed in northern Iraq at the beginning of the war, his phantom is used to justify the ongoing atrocities in Iraq. "[Al-Zarqawi's] family, in Jordan, even held a ceremony after his death," said Jawad Al-Khalessi, a Muslim Imam in Baghdad. "Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi is thus a bogyman used by the Americans, an excuse to continue the occupation. He's simply an invention by the occupiers to divide the people," added Al-Khalessi.
The alleged presence of Al-Zarqawi has two important purposes for the U.S. Occupation: it provides a way to distort the image of the legitimate Iraqi Resistance; and it allows the occupying forces to present the war of Occupation as a war against Al-Qaeda, the created enemy. Al-Qaeda has replaced Communism...
Just before the destruction of the city of Fallujah, in which thousands of innocent men, women and children have been murdered, U.S. forces justified the assault as a necessary step to "enhance democracy" and "flush-out" Al-Zarqawi and his men. After Fallujah was destroyed, and a large number of its people were slaughtered by U.S. forces, Al-Zarqawi was not found—because he died a long time ago. Fallujah has since become the symbol of Iraqi Resistance.
During the U.S. attacks on Mosul, Ramadi and Al-Qaim, the phantom of Al-Zarqawi continues to play an important role in Western propaganda. It was reported that Al-Zarqawi had survived the assault on Fallujah and is fighting the U.S. forces on many fronts. Nothing could be further from the truth. The attacks were directed primarily against members of the Iraqi Resistance and the Iraqi population at large.
"Al-Zarqawi is nothing more than a weapon of mass deception in the hands of the US army, which enables the latter to hide its 'black propaganda' activities, used to mount the population against the [Resistance]," said Mohamed Hassan, a former Ethiopian diplomat and Middle East specialist.
The U.S. attacks on the city of Tal Afar have also been justified as a "necessary operation against Al-Zarqawi and his groups of foreign fighters." A sole journalist from the Iraqi daily Azzaman, who was the only journalist in town, refused to support the U.S. version...
We know who is waging a war of terror on the defenceless people of Iraq. It isn't Al-Qaeda or Al-Zarqawi: it is the U.S. and Britain who are terrorising the Iraqi people on a daily basis. Iraq is not the frontline of terrorism; the Iraqi people are defending themselves and their country against terrorism.
Iraqi sources argued rightly that the U.S. forces and their collaborators are behind every major sectarian killing and kidnapping in the country. The promotion of Shiite-Sunni conflict is the creation of U.S. forces. The attacks on specific religious groups, such as on Shiites, were aimed at provoking sectarian strife among Iraqis. After every large killing of civilians, the U.S. and mainstream media are deliberately blaming the Iraqi Resistance for the violence. The main aim is to distort the image of the Resistance and weaken its popular support in Iraq and abroad...
The U.S. plan to divide Iraq—on ethnic and religious lines—and control its wealth was prepared several years before the war.[...]
Iraq Resistance Threatens U.S. Plans for Middle East
The U.S. rulers are clearly in a tighter and tighter spot. With all its political weaknesses, the Iraqi resistance is pushing them into a corner. If a political leadership emerges from it that is able to mobilize the masses of the Iraqi people and inspire the other oppressed peoples of the Middle East to combat imperialism and its local agents, the U.S. ruling class may face an explosive crisis, one that can shatter its stability at home as well as abroad....The classic recipe for political division of resistance groups is the strategy of setting up “counter gangs,” as laid out in the book “Low Intensity Operations” by British counter-insurgency expert Major General Frank Kitson. Such “counter gangs” serve as instruments for political diversion, and they can also carry out kidnappings and assassinations that the regular repressive forces would find too embarrassing.
Iraq Study Group: America ponders cutting Iraq in three
Sarah Baxter, Washington
The Sunday Times
October 8, 2006
AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.
The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month’s congressional elections amid signs that sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces are spiralling out of control. The conflict is claiming the lives of 100 civilians a day and bombings have reached record levels.
The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”.
Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations is the co-author with Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, of a plan to divide Iraq. “There was almost no support for our idea until very recently, when all the other ideas being advocated failed,” Gelb said. In Baghdad last week Rice indicated that time was running out for the Iraqi government to resolve the division of oil wealth and changes to the constitution.
The United States Institute of Peace
Download the report PDF - 519 KB
to link to the Iraq Study Group report from your Web site, http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html
Review of Other Plans for Iraq
Here is a review of some of the plans that are currently relevant to the situation. It is helpful to understand the strengths and weaknesses in each of them.
Iraq Study Group Report (ISG report)
Joe Biden’s and Leslie Gelb’s Plan
New York Times, May 1, 2006
Plan For Iraq
Now in control, Democrats seek unified war strategy
In pushing for a bipartisan plan, they seek to avoid 'ownership' of the war.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
December 01, 2006
WASHINGTON – After winning back control of the House and Senate largely on the basis of opposition to the war in Iraq, Democrats are ramping up to find a bipartisan way out of it.... the leading exit strategies, more troops, fewer troops, partition of Iraq, and timetables for phased or immediate withdrawal... are tied to individual sponsors... leading Democrats say that any exit strategy must be bipartisan...Democrats don't want to own a war that many believe is already beyond winning - or to be tagged with the consequences of a botched exit.
That's why the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, to be released on Dec. 6, have taken such a high profile on Capitol Hill.
In the first congressional hearings on Iraq since the elections, Senator Levin, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, renewed his call for a "phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months..."America has given the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a new nation at the cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and over 20,000 wounded. And the American people do not want our valiant troops to get caught in a crossfire between Iraqis if Iraqis insist on squandering that opportunity through civil war and sectarian strife," he said at Nov. 15 hearings...
On Nov. 14, Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin introduced legislation requiring US forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007.[...]
Joe Biden for President on plan to divide the country... Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007; Maintain in or near Iraq
“Plan B” would divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous zones based on ...
plan for U.S. withdrawal that “reduces our military presence in Iraq ...
Democrats Fail To Show A Clear Plan for Iraq - November 3, 2006 ...
The Democrats' pseudo-plan is the "let's divide Iraq and get out" proposal tabled by Senator Biden, who harbors presidential ...
Iraq: Divide and Rule, 'Ethnic Cleansing Works': Sunni, Shia violence, death squads, and civil war in Iraq
October 10, 2006
by Enver Masud, The Wisdom Fund
In a letter to President Clinton in 1998, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) -- the global domination project of the neoconservatives, which includes elements of Israel's "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" -- urged him to remove Saddam Hussein from power in order to secure "our vital interests in the Gulf" that holds "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil." This probably wouldn't happen, they said, unless "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" took place.
September 11, 2001 became the new Pearl Harbor.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: "The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities." But the decision to invade Iraq had been made much earlier...Thus began a campaign to deceive the world, and in particular the American people -- the high point of which was Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous presentation to the UN Security Council in February 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq "evidence" of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction conjured up by the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.
In May 2005, the Sunday Times revealed the secret Downing Street memo: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
In June 2005, the Sunday Times revealed: "MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal."
Now a U.S. commission is about to recommend carving up Iraq as the solution to Iraq's "sectarian violence".
"Iraq's sectarian bloodshed is Made in the USA" say Erik Leaver and Raed Jarrar. Writing in Asia Times they say, "Iraq never had a history of sectarian conflicts. U.S. policy choices provided a perfect road map for starting one."
The policy choices appear to have been calculated, and deliberate.
Thomas H. Henriksen wrote in the Hoover Digest:
"From the founding of the United States, the federal government has relied on subterfuge, skullduggery, and secret operations to advance American interests. . . . The post-invasion stage in Iraq also is an interesting case study of fanning discontent among enemies, . . . Like their SOG predecessors in Vietnam, U.S. elite forces in Iraq turned to fostering infighting among their Iraqi adversaries on the tactical and operational level."
Investigative reporter and author James Bamford writes in "A Pretext for War":
"... among the things they were trained to do at Harvey Point was practice blowing up busses -- Palestinian-terrorist style. "We made a school bus disappear with about twenty pounds of U.S. C-4," said former CIA officer Robert Baer. . . . "We were also taught some of the really esoteric stuff like E-cell timers, improvising pressurized airplane bombs using a condom and aluminum foil, . . . By the end of the training, we could have taught an advanced terrorism course."
Pepe Escobar writing in Asia Times says:
"Pentagon financing of these myriad [Iraqi] militias and the active involvement of Allawi in all these operations suggest that the Pentagon itself is destabilizing the country it is supposed to control. Destination: civil war."
Robert Dreyfuss, who covers national security for Rolling Stone, says:
"Shiite death squads and about abuses by the paramilitary Badr Brigade, the secret army trained and run by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Iraqi Sunnis and opposition leaders . . . have charged that the Iraqi government has been running assassination teams. The U.S., with its advisors, control of finances, and by the security it provides, controls the Iraqi government."
Journalist, author, film-maker, John Pilger, writing in the New Statesman says:..."in contrast to the embedded lie that the killings are now almost entirely sectarian, 70 per cent of the 1,666 bombs exploded by the resistance in July were directed against the American occupiers and 20 per cent against the puppet police force..."
So now we have this "independent commission" -- the Iraq Study Group, that wants to carve up Iraq into three regions.
The Iraq Study Group is led by co-chairs James A. Baker, III, a former Secretary of State, and Lee H. Hamilton, former Congressman. Other members of the study group include: Robert M. Gates, Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Edwin Meese III , Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, and Alan K. Simpson.
None among this group would appear to have a real appreciation for Iraq's culture and history, and the needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people. The group does have experience in covert operations, and in increasing profits for multinational corporations, and the military-industrial complex. In doing so, some have enriched themselves.
History leads us to believe that the recommendations of this "independent commission" will be designed to further the interests of their constituencies, and not of the Iraqi people.
Most of today's conflicts in present day Asia and Africa may be traced to imperial/colonial powers that occupied these lands, and carved them up for the benefit of the conquering Europeans. Carving up Iraq will continue this policy of divide and rule.
"The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing", wrote Ralph Peters in the U.S. Army War College Quarterly in the Summer 1997.
In June 2006, Ralph Peters, writing in the Armed Forces Journal:
"As for those who refuse to 'think the unthinkable,' declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips). Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works",
Whose Bombs were They
February 23, 2006
"The only viable strategy, then, may be to correct (Iraq’s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south" Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations; from "Three-state Solution" NY Times 11-25-03.
"We are facing a major conspiracy targeting Iraq’s unity." Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
[The destruction of the Samarra shrine] was a bold assault that strongly suggests the involvement of highly-trained paramilitaries conducting a well-rehearsed plan....Is the bombing of the al-Askariya Golden Mosque the final phase of a much broader strategy to inflame sectarian hatred and provoke civil war?
Clearly, many Sunnis, Iranians, and political analysts seem to believe so... the Bush administration’s own documents support the general theory that Iraq should be broken up into three separate pieces...
The final confirmation of Washington’s sinister plan was issued by Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a New York Times editorial on 11-25-03. The CFR is the ideological headquarters for America’s imperial interventions providing the meager rationale that papers-over the massive bloodletting that inevitably follow. Gelb stated:
"For decades, the United States has worshipped at the altar of a unified Iraqi state. Allowing all three communities within that false state to emerge at least as self-governing regions would be both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be very hard-headed and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup. But such a course is manageable, even necessary, because it would allow us to find Iraq’s future in its denied but natural past." ...
the belief that the attack was the work of American and Israeli covert-operations (Black-ops) is widespread throughout the region as well as among leftist political-analysts in the United States. Journalist Kurt Nimmo sees the bombing as a means of realizing "a plan sketched out in Oded Yinon’s "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" (the balkanization of Arab and Muslim society and culture.) Nimmo suggests that the plan may have been carried out by "American, British or Israeli Intelligence operatives or their double-agent Arab lunatics, or crazies incited by Rumsfeld’s Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) designed to 'stimulate’ terrorist reaction."...
...prominent analysts including, Pepe Escobar, Ghali Hassan, AK Gupta, Dahr Jamail, and Christian Parenti all agree that the Bush administration appears to be inciting civil war as part of an exit strategy. Certainly, the Pentagon is running out of options as well as time. Numerous leaked documents have confirmed that significant numbers of troops will have to be rotated out of the theatre by summer. A strategy to foment sectarian hostilities may be the last desperate attempt to divert the nearly 100 attacks per day away from coalition troops and finalize plans to divide Iraq into more manageable statlets.
The division of Iraq has been recommended in a number of documents that were prepared for the Defense Department. The Rand Corporation suggested that "Sunni, Shiite and Arab, non-Arab divides should be exploited to exploit the US policy objectives in the Muslim world." The 2004 study titled "US Strategy in the Muslim World" was "to identify key cleavages and fault-lines among sectarian, ethnic, regional, and national lines to assess how these cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United States" (Abdus Sattar Ghazali; thanks Liz Burbank)
This verifies that the strategy to split up Iraq has been circulating at the top levels of government from the very beginning of the occupation.
A similar report was produced by David Philip for the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) financed by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation a conservative think-tank with connections to the Bush administration and the American Enterprise Institute. According to Pepe Escobar:
"The plan would be 'sold’ under the admission that the recently elected, Shi’ite dominated Jaafari government is incapable of controlling Iraq and bringing the Sunni-Arab guerillas to the negotiating table... the plan is an exact replica of an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to balkanize Iraq—an essential part of the balkanization of the whole Middle East."
Historically Speaking: A 'Plan B' for Iraq
By Brig. Gen. John S. Brown, U.S. Army retired
A benign partition of Iraq is unlikely to occur without our help. We could start by redesigning assistance to the Iraqi Army along ethnic lines, fielding units prepared to police and defend their own ethnic enclaves. We could deal with the ethnic leadership as it now exists, providing the reasonable assistance and advice... This could include aid to militias we have heretofore spurned—or even fought. Fortuitously, the ethnic leadership that has risen to the top does have some electoral legitimacy, which we should encourage. We could assist in identifying sensible zones of separation and assist in developing the defenses that will secure them...
Since the Shiites and Kurds will get far more oil than the Sunnis, targeted economic assistance would be part of the equation as well. We could remove our soldiers from the streets of Iraq and as far into inaccessible deserts and mountains as possible. Their jobs would be to train Iraqis in secure locations, foray against identifiable international terrorists and respond to requests to bring massive firepower to bear on those who violate zones of separation or international boundaries... foreigners should not be allowed to preclude the right to national self-determination within Iraq. If in 10 years oil flows and three stable Mesopotamian nations are tied to the United States by gratitude and dependency, is that not a victory of sorts?
Plan B for Iraq [Archive] - Armed Forces Journal Forums
Remember the old English rulers golden formulae of ‘divide and rule’.
The odds of Iraq surviving as a constitutional democracy with its present borders intact are down to 50/50. While it's still too soon to give up on the effort to let free elections decide the future of one Arab-majority state, 2007 will be the year in which the Iraqis themselves determine whether our continued sacrifice is justified, or if Iraq is fated to become yet another catastrophic Arab failure.
by Nicola Nasser
...Rice noted her administration was just responding to a "new diplomatic initiative" by the Government of Iraq because "Prime Minister (Noori) Maliki believes and President Bush and I agree that success in Iraq requires the positive support of Iraq's neighbours." She did not miss the opportunity to remind that, "This is one of the key findings, of course of the Iraq Study Group." In fact this finding was also recommended recently by Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel among other world powers, mainly Russia, and by friendly Arab states as well as the U.S. bipartisan James Baker-Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group.
However Rice stressed that this "turnabout" was just an "additional component" to a U.S. "diplomatic offensive" aimed at cementing concrete action on the ground, including upgraded military naval presence in the Arabian Gulf ("Persian" to Iran) and a surge of 21.000 troops in Iraq, to guarantee "the security and stability of the Gulf region" and the success of the recently-launched "security plan" in Iraq. ...
The instrumental role played in Baghdad,s security plan by the pro-Iran militias who dominate the army, police and security agencies of the Iraqi government (5), could only be interpreted as using the American involvement to serve their own ends, i.e. to "clean" the Iraqi capital from both the national resistance and their sectarian foes alike. Once that is done Baghdad would be secured as their pro-Iran sectarian capital....
Iran has gained her prominent role in Iraq thanks to the U.S. Washington has adopted, financed, equipped and promoted pro-Iran militias as the alternative to the Saddam Hussein-led regime, knowing beforehand they were without exception nurtured militarily, financially and logistically by Iran and were either drawing on sectarian or ethnic divides for recruitment and support against the secular and the Pan-Arab ideology of the ruling Baath party, the only ideology other than the Islamic one that could secure a national majority consensus uniting all sects and ethnicities against foreign threats....
Ironically also Iraq,s regional role was one of the main targets of the U.S. occupation. The sectarian power struggle in Iraq in the post-Saddam era was exactly the US-sought pretext to stay in the country and use the divide as a realistic excuse to promote federalism as solution and accordingly install a weak central governing authority that depends internally more on regional federal security than on a strong national central source of authority and externally on the U.S. occupying power, which entails both a small Iraqi army and a weak federally-divided economy, thus dooming a major Arab state that was a founder of the League of Arab States and the United Nations to a minor regional role or no role at all in regional, especially Arab, politics.
Five months ahead of the invasion, Michael Eisenstadt, a senior fellow military and security expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy said: "A government organized along federal lines would rely on local law enforcement for internal security, alleviating the need for a large army or security apparatus. Such changes could foster a less aggressive Iraq that is less likely to assert a leadership role in the Arab world. The United States, not Iraq, will ensure regional stability and provide a counterbalance to Iran." (6)
Like many Arab governments, Iran has converged with the U.S. strategy of containing the Iraqi regional role. Tehran maintained armed formations, such as the Badr Corps, inside Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. In 2004, the assistant commander of the Iranian Republican Guard announced, during his visit to London, that Iran has two brigades and other militia in Iraq in order to protect the national security of Iran. Tehran anticipated and welcomed the U.S. invasion since it would destroy her chief enemy in the region. Now that the Iraqi enemy has been destroyed as a state irrespective of the ruling regime, "Iraq is considered to be the first line of defense for Iran against any foreign invasion." (7)
All U.S. administrations whether Republican or Democrat have been always ready to confront the regional roles of non-Middle Eastern powers, like Russia, or of Arab and Islamic states in Middle East in two cases: When those roles are in conflict with the Israeli security prerequisites and when they could compromise the American free access to the "vital" oil interests.
Saddam Hussein and Jamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt did both. [...]
The "containment strategy" has been always a national bipartisan U.S. strategy against what she labels as "rogue" states, which do not identically fall in line with the American strategies abroad. This strategy has become dangerously destabilising worldwide after the collapse of the balancing and deterring power of the former USSR and the emergence of the United States as the world,s only super power because the military intervention has been added as a feasible risk-free addition to sanctions within the containment strategy.The United States however tolerates even military regional roles played by strategic allies like Israel and encourages political roles regionally by friendly allied Arab states, which move and act within the U.S. strategy in the Middle East.
Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Ramallah, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
FM 3-24: America's new masterplan for Iraq
from Divide and Rule: Bush's Doomed Plan for Baghdad
by Robert Fisk, April 13, 2007
FM 3-24 comprises 220 pages of counter-insurgency planning, combat training techniques and historical analysis. The document was drawn up by Lt-Gen David Petraeus, the US commander in Baghdad, and Lt-Gen James Amos of the US Marine Corps, and was the nucleus for the new US campaign against the Iraqi insurgency. These are some of its recommendations and conclusions: ...
FM 3-24 quotes Lawrence of Arabia as saying: "Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them."
FM 3-24 points to Napoleon's failure to control occupied Spain as the result of not providing a "stable environment" for the population. His struggle, the document says, lasted nearly six years and required four times the force of 80,000 Napoleon originally designated.
Do not try to crack the hardest nut first. Do not go straight for the main insurgent stronghold. Instead, start from secure areas and work gradually outwards... Go with, not against, the grain of the local populace.
US drive in Iraq 'a lost cause'
Gulf News Report
Published: July 09, 2007
Dubai: President George W. Bush faced mounting calls yesterday to pull US troops immediately out of Iraq, where coalition troops are dying every day and where the military campaign has turned into a "lost cause" according to the New York Times....
'Plan to divide nation'
Shiite columnist Halim Al Araji said in a statement to Gulf News that Al Qaida is "the evil that everything is blamed upon" ... plans for the division "were prepared long ago".
With additional reports from Jumana Al Tamimi, GCC & Middle East Editor
Why the US has lost
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875
21 - 27 June 2007
By Abdul Ilah Albayaty and Hana Al Bayaty
The United States in Iraq is confronted by the force of a geopolitical society united for thousands of years
Resistance in Iraq is reported to be growing in size and spreading in its capacity to operate in an increasing number of provinces, blooming in further parts of the Iraqi territory. According to the US, it is by the intervention of foreign fighters. In reality, it is the revival of Iraqi nationalism and dignity. While the occupation and its lackey government continues to indiscriminately and massively incarcerate Iraqi citizens "suspected" of ties with the resistance, it seems unable to break its different expressionsarmed, political and popularor to break the sympathy it enjoys from the population. Daily, ever larger movements of opinion express their rejection of the occupation and its puppet government. Despite spending billions in war funding and propaganda, how did the American imperial plan fail in Iraq?
First of all, its failure is due to the inability of the US administration to recognise the impossibility of breaking Iraq up into smaller conflicting states. The neocon adventure and miscalculation is based on several factors, including taking their wishes as realities, their blind and sole reliance on military force to achieve their agenda, the gathering of information from some marginal and alienated Iraqi exiles, and their avoidance of studying the historical, cultural and social characteristics of the country they were about to invade and aimed to control. Prior to the invasion, and throughout these four disastrous years of occupation, the US underestimated the strength and deep-rooted character of Iraq's nationalism and culture, which was bound to face US imperialist plans with steadfast resistance, emanating from all sections of Iraqi society, including the supposed bases of their allies.
The US naively thought that it could use the richness of Iraqi society, characterised by its historic cosmopolitanism and multi-confessionalism, in the attempt to divide it along sectarian lines and in order to control the entire society. It is running after a mirage. Iraq has been for thousands of years composed of numerous ethnicities and religious confessions living in solidarity with each other regardless of their differences: the Christians, the Sabbits, the Yeziidies are equally as attached to Iraq as Muslims, and they are as Iraqi as their Muslim brothers. All Iraqis, whatever their ethnicity, religion, sect or social appurtenance, are inheritors of all successive Iraqi civilisations and their history. The values of a common life in a geographical area called Iraq or Mesopotamia unifies them. Those who know Iraq, its unifying Arab Muslim identity and its history, are aware that those who wish to divide Iraq and subjugate it to the will of foreign powers will be confronted by the force of thousands of years of a united society, in addition to the geopolitical united interests of its regions and of its social constituents. Never in history could two states cohabitate the basin that is now called Iraq. It has always been in the interest of the people settling in this basin, throughout successive civilisations, to unite in a common geopolitical future. If, in the past, the two rivers were the unifying factors of all aspects of life in this entity called Iraq, now are added the role of culture, geopolitical interests and the common ownership of the land and its riches.
It is true that in Iraq there were several political groups who opposed the leadership of the Iraqi government prior to the invasion and destruction of Iraq. They have, as all oppositions, the right to oppose their national government. But some proposed themselves as collaborators with the imperial US and allies and their criminal plan of dividing their land, either by ignorance, greed, or for personal or sectarian reasons. They will be thrown with their paymaster's plan into the rubbish of history. They ignored Iraq's ancient and complex relation to its identity and its common relations to its neighbours, as well as its contemporary experience regarding imperialist policies towards its progress and development, especially those of the United States after being subject to 13 years of US-led crippling sanctions. Unlike these sectarian groups, the population itself, regardless of its confessional, ethnical or political affiliations, as has been proven by its heroic resistance to attempts to break up and divide Iraq, was not opposed to the unity and integrity of the Iraqi state.
Iraq is the area that used to be called Mesopotamia. All Iraqis are the daughters or sons of this history and are inheritors of all the successive civilisations that emerged in this land. Where the Sumerians invented writing, the Babylonians invented law; the Assyrians unified the region, followed by the Abbasid who introduced the advance of the "state of all its citizens" and of social solidarity in society, opening the path for the unifying Arab Muslim civilisation that survives proudly to this day. Since then, being Iraqi is based not on ethnicity or religion or sect but on being Iraqi. The Iraqi people are the expression of this heritage, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Whenever Iraq could live in peace and have a stable state it proved it could participate in the enhancement of human culture and development and created great civilisations and regional orders. Baghdad is the cradle of the Arab Muslim civilisation. Iraq's destiny continues to be one of the markers that will decide Arab destiny. For Iraqis and Arabs in general, to destroy Baghdad is in fact an attempt to destroy their memory, identity and interests.
The geopolitical characteristics of Iraq have been, and will always be, a great influence on Iraq's history. It is of no surprise that the US chose to occupy Iraq in order to try to ensure its regional and world domination. By occupying Iraq, the US thought it could control the entire region and by extension maintain its unipolar hegemony. First, Iraq is a country rich in natural resources, whether in oil, gas or water. Second, it enjoys a median geographical position in the region. This position has always made it the centre of outside ambitions. No regional power could be considered as such without attempting either to control or weaken Iraq. Indeed, Iraq is a crossroads. Its land provides the necessary route and influence for Iran to access Syria, Jordan and the Mediterranean, and for Syria and Jordan as they look towards Iran and the Arabian Gulf basin. It is also the natural path from Turkey to the Gulf, and vice versa. Consequently, while being the centre of foreign designs, the security, stability and unity of Iraq are also a necessity for all these countries. Indeed, the slightest deterioration in relations between Iraq and any of its neighbours is automatically a setback for cooperation throughout the whole region while, on the other hand, any hegemony of one neighbour over Iraq is a setback for Iraq and all its neighbours.
The only equation that serves Iraq's interests is to insist on its Arab Muslim appurtenance and maintain good and fraternal relations with both Turkey and Iran. If Iraq were to break off relations with any neighbouring state, this would reduce its own ability to benefit from its median position, and thus from regional cooperation and the development of infrastructure. It would penalise its industry and its agriculture, and cut it off from the regional trade necessary to its growth and progress. The more its neighbours flourish and progress, the more Iraq can acquire opportunities to develop by cooperating with all of them. The myth that the economic, social and political development of Turkey and Iran might constitute a danger for Iraq rests on a superficial and ignorant analysis of the relations between these states, and of the laws governing development between neighbouring countries. In fact, the more Iran and Turkey develop and the richer they become, the more they will need a stable, prosperous and unified Iraq. For such an Iraq would represent both purchasing power for their goods, and a source of production factors.
No one can extract Iraq from its geopolitical and cultural circumstance. Iraq cannot have relations with the US, Russia, Europe or Israel and ignore its concrete Arab Muslim appurtenance and interests. It is against the interest of Iraq and of Iraqis to be a mere protectorate of Iran or any other country. It is a failed dream that Iraq could be subjugated to US-Iran co-occupation. The free will of Iraq and the Iraqi people refuses and will refuse, by culture and interest, to be subjugated to any foreign state, be it regional, superpower or combined. History proved this. In fact, the US's plans to destroy Iraq as a nation and as a state are not only against the interests of all Iraqis but also those of neighbouring states. It is a delusion, a non-workable plan. It is being resisted by all sections of Iraqi society. It creates so much instability that it makes it impossible to control, invest or even exploit Iraq's resources. By opening the door to all sorts of foreign interference, the occupation could only result in an unspeakable crime against humanity and a military, economic, political and moral disaster for the occupation itself.
What the US occupation and its allies did to Iraq does not only constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity; it will always be remembered as the first genocide of the 21st century. That the world, due to the bias of international media, is currently unaware of this does not change the reality that all Iraqis and Arabs know it. In perpetrating civilisational genocide, the US has committed moral suicide. Without attempting this genocide, American plans could not succeed. While perpetrating genocide, the US announced its moral ruin, and its plans will not succeed.
In order to divide Iraq, an ancient society existing for thousands of years, into three or more weak and conflicting protectorates, the US has to destroy all that unites the Iraqis; in other words, to conduct a policy that amounts to tabula rasa. This intended destruction necessarily encompasses: the state, culture, history, material heritage, society, economic sustainability, institutions, army, education system, health system, judicial system, infrastructure, communication facilities, national identity, indeed the very essence of Iraq. It must disrupt and destroy the existence of the living people and its moral values. It must ruin them for generations, if not all of history. It even needs to destroy the physical forms of cities. The occupation has offered nothing to the Iraqi people but an organised project of extermination based on the insanity of "creative chaos".
No statistic can embody the destruction the United States brought to Iraq. It decimated the Iraqi state and an entire popular classthe progressive middle class of Iraq that had proven its capacity to manage Iraqi resources independently and to the benefit of all, thereby saving Iraqis from poverty, disease, backwardness and ignorance; it pushed civil liberties, of men and women alike, back 50 years, destroying social guarantees; it killed more than a million while sending millions more into exile; it orchestrated death squads and looting and invented new horrors in torture and rape; in the name of bringing democracy, it brought material destruction on a mass scale to a people, aiming also to efface their psyche, culture, memory, social fabric, institutions and forms of administration, commerce, and everyday life; it even attacked Iraq's unborn generations with the 4.7 billion-year death of depleted uranium. The occupation resulted in the complete breakdown of public services, leaving unavailable even those as basic as water and electricity. In a land with a natural patrimony of 210 billion barrels of oil, under occupation Iraqis suffer shortages in fuel. It created a state of terror in which families are confined to their homes, waiting to be kidnapped or killed at any moment. People are summarily executed because their father named them Omar, Hussein or Jean.
Before the invasion and destruction of Iraq, the majority of Iraqis sustained lives working in public institutions. Iraq was a welfare state based on the cultural understanding common to all in the Orient that the land and its riches is the property of the nation. Supported by the resources natural to the land, a large part of the population was employed in the education and health systems, nationalised industries, and the national army. Since the agricultural reform of 1959, followed by the nationalisations of 1964, the middle class guided state and society. Seventy per cent of the Iraqi population was living in towns. The nationalisation of the oil sector in 1971 led to the enlargement of the middle class and elevated the living standards of the poorer section of the population. The US plan of extermination was aimed at destroying this middle class that naturally is the inheritor of Iraqi culture, science, unity and dignity, striving for freedom, progress and development. It tried to subjugate it to a cabal and feudal class of new and old thieves, rapists, marginal politicians, backward religious extremists, criminal gangs, and warlords that appeared or reappeared in the situation created by the occupation.
It was evident that the US and its allies, even before the invasion were running after an illusion. Why would the Iraqi people accept and welcome a plan that would deprive them and only benefit a few? The marginalised and impoverished, the educated middle classes, the working classes, which lost the benefit of nationwide services, women and the youth, which suffers from unemployment and the absence of civil liberties, all reject US policy in Iraq. This is the source of what now and into the future will be a never-ending social struggle against the occupation and eventually its defeat, and the defeat of its policies. Without the middle class, the US cannot build a functioning state; the Iraqi middle class, all parts included, clearer and bolder, and with it the labouring classes, rejects the US occupation and its plans.
The Iraqi people are resisting and will continue to do so. If, due to its superiority in military power, the US can continue to control bases like the "Green Zone", the Iraqis are compelled to continue to live in resistance. However, in parallel, the longer the US continues to occupy Iraq, the more it will pay in the blood of its young soldiers, the more money it will waste serving the needs of its bloodied war machine, the more its image and reputation will be rubbished worldwide by its genocidal policies, and the more it will jeopardise its future and the future of its children.
Why all this waste? American strategists, while building their model for Iraq, missed or disregarded the fact that social movements are based on solid realities and lived experience, and cannot just be created on the whim of a political decision, through insidious forms of pressure or by an all-out military assault on a poor population. By thinking that they could win in Iraq, US administrators, think tanks, strategists and tacticians have only proven their simple arrogance and ignorance. They should read history, and analyze the objective realities. No foreign power was ever able to control Iraq. Iraq is a small country with great dignity, a sophisticated ancient civilisational legacy, and a very experienced national patriotic movement. The US cannot break this people's will to live free and sovereign on its land, and over its resources, as all other peoples in the world. They should have asked the British.
Abdul Ilah Albayaty is a political analyst living in France; Hana Al Bayaty is a member of the Executive Committee of the B Russell s Tribunal.
America plans to give Southern Iraq to Iran
by Abid Mustafa
Media Monitors Network
Monday, July 16, 2007
(Sunday, November 5, 2006)
"After the fall of Saddam, America has become the chief perpetrator in fostering sectarian violence through employing military operations and promoting defunct political processes that by their very nature engender sectarian strife."
Over the past few months talk about the division of Iraq has gained currency amongst America’s political establishment. Most notable is the plan advocated by Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden purports to decentralise Iraq and give the country's three major sectarian groups, the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, their own regions, distributing oil revenue to all. Another US official Peter Galbraith, a former State Department employee who's advised Iraqi Kurdish leaders on political issues and is the author of “The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War without End” , said in an interview, “The country has already broken up. And actually, I'm opposed to using U.S. resources to try to put it back together again. Kurdistan in the north is already a de facto independent state. It has its own elected government. It has its own army. It flies its own flag. The Iraqi army is not allowed to go to Kurdistan. The Iraqi flag is banned there. The Shiite south is governed by the Shiite religious parties who enforce an Iranian-style Islamic law with militias. It's also not governed from Baghdad. Baghdad itself is the front line of a civil war divided between a Shiite east and a Sunni west, and the Sunni center is a battleground between the coalition and Sunni insurgents. So the country has already broken up, and this result is actually incorporated into the Iraqi constitution. The constitution creates a virtually powerless center…”...
...State James Baker who is currently the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel that is reassessing Iraq strategy for President George W. Bush is critical of Biden’s plan, but is open to the prospect of dividing Iraq between Syria and Iran. In an interview to ABC News television Baker said, “I believe in talking to your enemies.”
The debate amongst America’s political establishment to partition Iraq has caused consternation amongst some Arab states who are avid supporters of the old British policy to preserve Iraq’s integrity. Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal in a speech delivered in Washington on 30/10/06 said,” To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale...
Hitherto Washington has not officially endorsed the plan to divide Iraq and give Southern Iraq to Iran, but the facts on the ground speak volumes about America’s intentions.
Since the first gulf war, America has worked tirelessly to isolate Baghdad from the Kurdish areas to the North of Iraq and Shiite dominated areas to the South of Iraq. America instigated the infamous Operation Northern Watch to enforce the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel in Iraq and monitor Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, and 688. Operation Southern Watch was enforced to protect the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel in Iraq and monitor compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 688, and 949.
After the fall of Saddam, America has become the chief perpetrator in fostering sectarian violence through employing military operations and promoting defunct political processes that by their very nature engender sectarian strife.
In the aftermath of Baath regime’s sudden collapse, America sure of Kurdish support for autonomous rule began to garner support amongst the Shias for a pseudo federalist state. To accomplish this feat, America enlisted the help of Ayatollah Sistani and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution. Both Ayatollahs’ have close ties with Iran; the only difference between the two is that the latter has 10,000 soldiers at his disposal. The Badr army as they are known is tolerated by the Americans and conduct operations under American tutelage. Hakim has aggressively pushed for federalism for the southern regions, calling for nine provinces to merge.
In October 2006, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution after a controversial vote, agreeing to revisit how to create a federalist state in 18 months. Sunni parliamentarians boycotted the vote, saying it would divide the country, and the measure passed 140-to-0 by the largely Shiite and Kurdish members still present. Shortly after the parliament vote, Hakim said in a news conference that dividing Iraq into three regions would stop the violence, citing the relatively peaceful Kurdish regions. "There is a clear point of view gleaned from our Kurdish brothers, and that is, the Iraq problem can only be solved with regions," Hakim said.
Hakim’s declaration for greater Shiite autonomy coincides with Bush’s abandonment of promoting democracy in the region, drawing Iraq—Vietnam parallels and signaling US troop withdrawal to start as early as 2007. Unsurprisingly then that Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, recently said that the unity government of Nouri al-Maliki, had only two months left to get a grip on the situation. It appears that the option of cut and run will be replaced by cut Iraq and watch Iran take southern Iraq.
But Washington has three major problems with this scheme. Firstly, Europe led by Britain has considerable influence over the various Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite factions- So any partitioning of Iraq may not result in oil rich regions falling completely under America’s hegemony. Secondly, Ahmadinejad is proving to be a real nuisance towards American policy in the region, despite US attempts to curb his ambitions through the likes of Khatami and Rafsanjani. Thirdly, the most worrisome matter for Washington— is what if the division of Iraq fails and leaves a vacuum only to be filled in by the Caliphate- something which Bush and his acolytes have profusely warned about.
Abid Mustafa contributed this article to MMN. He is based in the UK and specialises in Muslim affairs.
Sinister Plan to Divide Iraq
Arab View Guest Contributor
... US wanted to guarantee the implementation of its secret scheme to divide the Arab world into small petty states that could be easily brought to obedience in order to protect the US and Israeli interests forever.
Those familiar with the American behavior in recent times could view the White House statement only as a preliminary step on the road to Iraq’s division into three states — Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish. This division would also pave the US road to Iran and Syria.
There are some naïve people who believe that Washington would not break
its promise of maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq.
It is not yet time to forget that the US intervention in Somalia threw its people to a protracted civil war until the country was split on tribal lines. Further to the north in Sudan the US has been provoking the people of southern Sudan to cut the country to two and create a Christian nation.
As the US failed in the attempt, it is now striving to exploit the Darfur issue ... and thus destabilize and debilitate Sudan.
Voices of partition between the south and north could be heard from Yemen as well. Some suggestions about a separate region for Egyptian Christians with Asyut as its capital has also been circulated.
The idea came from certain Egyptian Christians based in the US and Canada. It is hardly possible to divide Egypt. There is no single region with Christian majority in Egypt. Asyut cannot be made a capital for a Christian state as the Muslims outnumber the Christians there.
In the above-mentioned security meeting, the US mention of Iraq’s division means it is a secret design.
The linking of the president’s rejection of the idea of partition with his disapproval of the rising Iraqi death toll that reached 3,500 in July alone — apart from 1,666 explosions — means it is a warning that the violence will not stop without the partition.
The president’s disapproval of the increasing violence could be viewed as a step toward dividing the country as the only solution to the issue.
His public rejection of the idea of the partition could be dismissed as a political ploy... the US, seemingly, wants the chaos to deepen so that a situation would emerge in which everybody would clamor that “Iraq should
be divided if peace is to be achieved.”
In such a situation the world would accept the US proposal of the Iraqi partition. It would also signal the beginning of the implementation of the US scheme to divide other large Muslim countries...
Iraqis reject the US military presence in their country. They also reject the US plans including the imposition of a spurious American democracy.
The Iraqi resistance ... is being undertaken jointly by the Sunnis and Shiites because their goal is one: Oppose the occupying forces and their supporters... leave Iraq to Iraqis letting them decide their future.
Brownback's pushes plan formulated with Leslie Gelb, former head of the private Council on Foreign Relations, to divide Iraq into Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish states...part of an unlikely Senate duo that's promoting the plan to partition Iraq with Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware...Peter Galbraith, former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who's advised the Kurds, also backs the plan. ...
Lal Masjid: What really happened?
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Sunday, July 15, 2007)
"Musharraf wanted to diffuse the multi-parties conference in London [a meeting of dozens of Pakistani politicians]. Before that he was using Lal Mosque to distract [from] the judicial crisis."
The so-called Lal Masjid operation is officially over but it leaves the military regime and Pakistan in a major security, political, moral and religious crisis. Based on the available information, we can clearly see as to what really happened. Following are the bare minimum facts that can be accommodated in a short article. It is, however, not difficult to dig the associated facts and prepare a legal case against the culprits of this bloody adventure.
The pro-regime analysts claim that all the damning information that exposes the regime is fantastic and damning allegations, facts mixed with fantasy to create dramatic PR affects. They want to make the public believe that the following are mere perceptions and have nothing to do with the reality:
That there are over 1000 casualties of students, mostly women and children and the government have removed the bodies for secret burials.
There were no weapons in the complex and the governments have planted them after the operation.
There were no terrorists or foreign fighters inside the complex and the government is only using this excuse to build its cases.
The operation has been carried out on the orders of US by General Musharraf to please West to seek a re-election for next five years.
Abid Ullah Jan is the author of seven books on international affairs, including: “The Ultimate Tragedy: Colonialists Rushing to Global War to Save the Crumbling Empire,”“Afghansitan: The Genesis of the Final Crusade,”“The Musharraf Factor: Leading Pakistan to its inevitable demise,”“From BCCI to ISI: The Saga of Entrapment Continues” and “After Fascism: Muslims and the Struggle for Self-Determination.” He is a regular contributor to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from Canada.
Israel planning to assassinate Haniyeh, Nazareth-based paper says
An Arabic-language newspaper published in Nazareth, in northern Israel, reported on Friday that the Israeli cabinet has approved plans to assassinate Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the Hamas movement. According to the paper's Israeli sources, the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, has also approved the decision. The As-Sennara newspaper added that sources "close to the Israeli decision-makers" affirmed that the Israeli security bodies have drawn up plans to "eliminate" Haniyeh. According to the Nazareth-based paper, the Israeli security bodies have handed over these plans to Barak, who, in turn, has agreed from a preliminary point of view to the plans...
PUPPET'S LAST DANCE CHANCE
Maliki Says His Forces Are Able to Secure Iraq
Prime Minister al-Maliki declared Saturday Iraqi forces could secure the country on their own "any time" American troops decided to withdraw.
CHINA WON'T PLAY: U.S ONLY MAY BAN/BOYCOTT/CRIMINALIZE
China Blocks Some Imports of U.S. Chicken and Pork
China suspending imports of some chicken and pork [AGAIN] after inspectors found shipments from 8 major meat indutry producers contaminated with chemicals or bacteria. Officials at Tyson Foods in Springdale, Ark., the world’s largest meat producer, could not be reached for comment early Saturday. A spokesman for Cargill, which is based in Minneapolis, was also unavailable for comment.
Beijing officials suggested that the international news media and American regulators are exaggerating or misleading the public about the quality and safety of some Chinese imports....:The country should not be put on trial because of the problems of a particular company.”
ONE MASTER CHURCH
New Vatican document affirms centrality of Catholic Church
Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"5, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.6 "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"7.
Deal Reported in Abuse Cases in Los Angeles
If approved, a settlement of $660 million will be by far the largest payout by any single Roman Catholic diocese in scandals over sexual abuse.
Russia Suspends Arms Agreement Over U.S. Shield
Russia said it would suspend its obligations under a cold war-era arms control treaty over a missile shield plan.