- Establishing an "Arc of Crisis"
-
- Many would be skeptical that the Anglo-Americans would
be behind terrorist acts in Iraq, such as with the British in Basra, when
two British SAS soldiers were caught dressed as Arabs, with explosives
and massive arsenal of weapons.[1] Why would the British be complicit in
orchestrating terror in the very city in which they are to provide security?
What would be the purpose behind this? That question leads us to an even
more important question to ask, the question of why Iraq was occupied;
what is the purpose of the war on Iraq? If the answer is, as we are often
told with our daily dose of CNN, SkyNews and the statements of public officials,
to spread democracy and freedom and rid the world of tyranny and terror,
then it doesn't make sense that the British or Americans would orchestrate
terror.
-
- However, if the answer to the question of why the Anglo-American
invasion of Iraq occurred was not to spread democracy and freedom, but
to spread fear and chaos, plunge the country into civil war, balkanize
Iraq into several countries, and create an "arc of crisis" across
the Middle East, enveloping neighboring countries, notably Iran, then terror
is a very efficient and effective means to an end.
-
- An Imperial Strategy
-
- In 1982, Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with links
to the Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote an article for a publication of the
World Zionist Organization in which he outlined a "strategy for Israel
in the 1980s." In this article, he stated, "The dissolution of
Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon
is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front. Iraq, rich in oil on the
one hand and internally torn on the other is guaranteed as a candidate
for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than
that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi
power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel." He continued,
"An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall
at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against
us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short
run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq
into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon." He continues, "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 Shiite areas
in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."[2]
-
- The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted until 1988, did not result
in Oded Yinon's desired break-up of Iraq into ethnically based provinces.
Nor did the subsequent Gulf War of 1991 in which the US destroyed Iraq's
infrastructure, as well as the following decade-plus of devastating sanctions
and aerial bombardments by the Clinton administration. What did occur during
these decades, however, were the deaths of millions of Iraqis and Iranians.
-
- A Clean Break for a New American Century
-
- In 1996, an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies, issued a report under the think tank's
Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, entitled, "A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." In this paper, which
laid out recommendations for Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
they state that Israel can, "Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to
contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats,"
as well as, "Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians,
including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all
Palestinian areas," and to, "Forge a new basis for relations
with the United States-stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation
on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West."
-
- The report recommended Israel to seize "the strategic
initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and
Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon," and to use
"Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon."
It also states, "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation
with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back
Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq
- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means
of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."[3]
-
- The authors of the report include Douglas Feith, an ardent
neoconservative who went on to become George W. Bush's Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy from 2001 to 2005; David Wurmser, who was appointed
by Douglas Feith after 9/11 to be part of a secret Pentagon intelligence
unit and served as a Mideast Adviser to Dick Cheney from 2003 to 2007;
and Meyrav Wurmser, David's wife, who is now an official with the American
think tank, the Hudson Institute.
-
- Richard Perle headed the study, and worked on the Pentagon's
Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004, and was Chairman
of the Board from 2001 to 2004, where he played a key role in the lead-up
to the Iraq war. He was also a member of several US think tanks, including
the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American
Century.
-
- The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is
an American neoconservative think tank, whose membership and affiliations
included many people who were associated with the present Bush administration,
such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard
Armitage, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Paula Dobriansky, Francis
Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Peter Rodman,
Dov Zakheim and Robert B. Zoellick.
-
- PNAC produced a report in September of 2000, entitled,
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for
a New Century," in which they outlined a blueprint for a Pax Americana,
or American Empire. The report puts much focus on Iraq and Iran, stating,
"Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests
in the Gulf as Iraq has."[4] Stating that, "the United States
has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security,"
the report suggests that, "the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides
the immediate justification," however, "the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime
change of Saddam Hussein."[5]
-
- Engineer a Civil War for the "Three State Solution"
-
- Shortly after the initial 2003 invasion and occupation
of Iraq, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Leslie Gelb,
President Emeritus and Board Member of the US-based Council on Foreign
Relations, the most influential and powerful think tank in the United States.
The op-ed, titled, "The Three State Solution," published in November
of 2003, stated that the "only viable strategy" for Iraq, "may
be to correct the historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state
solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south."
Citing the example of the break up of Yugoslavia, Gelb stated that the
Americans and Europeans "gave the Bosnian Muslims and Croats the means
to fight back, and the Serbs accepted separation." Explaining the
strategy, Gelb states that, "The first step would be to make the north
and south into self-governing regions, with boundaries drawn as closely
as possible along ethnic lines," and to "require democratic elections
within each region." Further, "at the same time, draw down American
troops in the Sunni Triangle and ask the United Nations to oversee the
transition to self-government there." Gelb then states that this policy
"would be both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be
very hard-headed, and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup."[6]
-
- Following the example of Yugoslavia, as Gelb cited, would
require an engineered civil war between the various ethnic groups. The
US supported and funded Muslim forces in Bosnia in the early 1990s, under
the leadership of the CIA-trained Afghan Mujahideen, infamous for their
CIA-directed war against the Soviet Union from 1979-1989. In Bosnia, the
Mujahideen were "accompanied by US Special Forces," and Bill
Clinton personally approved of collaboration with "several Islamic
fundamentalist organisations including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda."
In Kosovo, years later, "Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East
and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort." The
US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the British Secret Intelligence Services
(MI6), British SAS soldiers and American and British private security companies
had the job of arming and training the KLA. Further, "The U.S. State
Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that
it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin
trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly
Usama bin Laden," and as well as that, "the brother of a leader
in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama
bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict."[7]
-
- Could this be the same strategy being deployed in Iraq
in order to break up the country for similar geopolitical reasons?
-
- The Asia Times Online reported in 2005, that
the plan of "balkanizing" Iraq into several smaller states, "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. Curiously,
Henry Kissinger was selling the same idea even before the 2003 invasion
of Iraq." It continued, "this is classic divide and rule: the
objective is the perpetuation of Arab disunity. Call it Iraqification;
what it actually means is sectarian fever translated into civil war."[8]
-
- In 2006, an "independent commission set up by Congress
with the approval of President George W Bush," termed the "Baker
Commission" after former Secretary of State, James Baker, "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'."[9]
-
- It was also reported in 2006 that, "Iraq's federal
future is already enshrined within its constitution, allowing regions to
form, if not actually prescribing how this should happen," and that,
"the Iraqi parliament (dominated by Shi'a and Kurds) passed a bill
earlier this month [October, 2006] allowing federal regions to form (by
majority vote in the provinces seeking merger)." Further, "The
law, which unsurprisingly failed to win Sunni support, will be reviewed
over the next 18 months in a bid to bring its opponents round." The
article, however, stated that instead of a three state solution, "a
system based upon five regions would seem to have more chance of succeeding.
A five-region model could see two regions in the south, one based around
Basra and one around the holy cities. Kurdistan and the Sunni region would
remain, but Baghdad and its environs would form a fifth, metropolitan,
region."[10] The author of the article was Gareth Stansfield, an Associate
Fellow at Chatham House think tank in London, which preceded, works with
and is the British equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations.
-
- "Ethnic Cleansing Works"
-
- In 2006, the Armed Forces Journal published
an article by retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters, titled, "Blood
Borders: How a better Middle East would look." In the article, Peters
explains that the best plan for the Middle East would be to "readjust"
the borders of the countries. "Accepting that international statecraft
has never developed effective tools - short of war - for readjusting faulty
borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic"
frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties
we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made
deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they
are corrected." He states that after the 2003 invasion, "Iraq
should have been divided into three smaller states immediately." However,
Iraq is not the only country to fall victim to "Balkanization"
in Peters' eyes, as, "Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling
as Pakistan," and "Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would
lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the
Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around
Herat in today's Afghanistan." Further, "What Afghanistan would
lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan's Northwest
Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren." Peters
states that "correcting borders" may be impossible, "For
now. But given time - and the inevitable attendant bloodshed - new and
natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once." He
further makes the astonishing statement that, "Oh, and one other dirty
little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."[11]
-
- The map of the re-drawn Middle East, initially published
alongside Peters' article, but no longer present, "has been used in
a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers.
This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at
the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles."[12]
Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed wrote of Peters' proposal, that "the sweeping
reconfiguration of borders he proposes would necessarily involve massive
ethnic cleansing and accompanying bloodshed on perhaps a genocidal scale."[13]
-
- Federalism or Incremental Balkanization?
-
- A month before Peters' article was published, Leslie
Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Joseph Biden, a Democratic
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote an op-ed for the New
York Times, in which they stated, "America must get beyond the present
false choice between "staying the course" and "bringing
the troops home now" and choose a third way that would wind down our
military presence responsibly while preventing chaos and preserving our
key security goals." What is this third option? "The idea, as
in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each
ethno-religious group-Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab-room to run its
own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests."
-
- They describe a few aspects of this plan. "The first
is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central
government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each
be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal
security. The central government would control border defense, foreign
affairs and oil revenues." Then, "The second element would be
to entice the Sunnis into joining the federal system with an offer they
couldn't refuse. To begin with, running their own region should be far
preferable to the alternatives: being dominated by Kurds and Shiites in
a central government or being the main victims of a civil war."[14]
-
- In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
in 2007, Leslie Gelb stated that his plan for "federalizing"
Iraq, "would look like this: The central government would be based
on the areas where there are genuine common interests among the different
Iraqi parties. That is, foreign affairs, border defense, currency and,
above all, oil and gas production and revenues." And, "As for
the regions, whether they be three or four or five, whatever it may be,
it's up to-all this is up to the Iraqis to decide, would be responsible
for legislation, administration and internal security."[15]
-
- The Senate subsequently passed a nonbinding resolution
supporting a federal system for Iraq, which has still yet to be enacted
upon, because it stated that this resolution was something that had to
be enacted upon by the Iraqis, so as not to be viewed as "something
that the United States was going to force down their throats." Further,
"when Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, he testified in favor of federalism. In his private conversations
with senators, he also supported the idea," yet, while in Baghdad,
the Ambassador "blasted the resolution."[16] Could this be a
method of manipulation? If the American Embassy in Baghdad promotes a particular
solution for Iraq, it would likely be viewed by Iraqis as a bad choice
and in the interest of the Americans. So, if the Ambassador publicly bashes
the resolution from Iraq, which he did, it conveys the idea that the current
administration is not behind it, which could make Iraqis see it as a viable
alternative, and perhaps in their interests. For Iraqi politicians, embracing
the American view on major issues is political (and often actual) suicide.
The American Embassy in Baghdad publicly denouncing a particular strategy
gives Iraqi politicians public legitimacy to pursue it.
-
- This resolution has still not gone through all the processes
in Congress, and may, in fact, have been slipped into another bill, such
as a Defense Authorization Act. However, the efforts behind this bill are
larger than the increasingly irrelevant US Congress.
-
- Also in 2007, another think tank called for the managed
"break-up of Iraq into three separate states with their own governments
and representatives to the United Nations, but continued economic cooperation
in a larger entity modeled on the European Union."[17] In a startling
admission by former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, stated
in 2007 that the "United States has "no strategic interest"
in a united Iraq," and he also suggested "that the United States
shouldn't necessarily keep Iraq from splitting up."[18]
-
- Conclusion
-
- Clearly, whatever the excuse, or whatever the means of
dividing Iraq, it is without a doubt in the Anglo-American strategy for
Iraq to balkanize the country. Saying that what is being proposed is not
balkanization, but federalism, is a moot point. This is because reverting
to a more federal system where provinces have greater autonomy would naturally
separate the country along ethno-religious boundaries. The Kurds would
be in the north, the Sunnis in the centre, and the Shi'ites in the south,
with all the oil. The disproportionate provincial resources will create
animosity between provinces, and the long-manipulated ethnic differences
will spill from the streets into the political sphere. As tensions grow,
as they undoubtedly would, between the provinces, there would be a natural
slide to eventual separation. Disagreements over power sharing in the federal
government would lead to its eventual collapse, and the strategy of balkanization
would have been achieved with the appearance of no outside involvement.
-
-
- NOTES
-
- [1] Global Research, Iraqi MP accuses British Forces
in Basra of "Terrorism". Al Jazeera: September 20, 2005:
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=983
-
- [2] Linda S. Heard, The Prophecy of Oded Yinon.
Counter Punch: April 25, 2006:
- http://www.counterpunch.org/heard04252006.html
-
- [3] Richard Perle, et. al., A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm. The Institute for Advanced Strategic
and Political Studies: June 1996:
- http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
-
- [4] PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses. Project
for the New American Century: September 2000: Page 17
-
- [5] PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses. Project
for the New American Century: September 2000: Page 14
-
- [6] Leslie Gelb, The Three State Solution. The New
York Times: November 25, 2003:
- http://www.cfr.org/publication/6559/threestate_solution.html?breadcrumb=
- %2Fbios%2F3325%2Fleslie_h_gelb%3Fpage%3D3
-
- [7] Michel Chossudovsky, "Osamagate." Global
Research: October 9, 2001:
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html
-
- [8] Pepe Escobar, Exit strategy: Civil war. Asia
Times Online: June 10, 2005:
-
- http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF10Ak03.html
-
- [9] Sarah Baxter, America ponders cutting Iraq in
three. The Times: October 8, 2006: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article664974.ece
-
- [10] Gareth Stansfield, The only solution left for
Iraq: a five-way split. The Telegraph: October 29, 2006:
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/200
- 6/10/29/do2904.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/29/ixopinion.html
-
- [11] Ralph Peters, Blood Borders: How a better Middle
East would look. Armed Forces Journal: June 2006:
- http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
-
- [12] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Plans for Redrawing
the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East". Global
Research: November 18, 2006:
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3882
-
- [13] Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, US Army Contemplates
Redrawing Middle East Map
-
- to Stave Off Looming Global Meltdown. Dissident Voice:
September 1, 2006:
- http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept06/Ahmed01.htm
-
- [14] Leslie Gelb and Joseph Biden, Jr., Unity Through
Autonomy in Iraq. The New York Times: May 1, 2006:
- http://www.cfr.org/publication/10569/unity_through_autonomy_in_iraq.html?b
- readcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3325%2Fleslie_h_gelb%3Fpage%3D2
-
- [15] Leslie Gelb, Leslie Gelb before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. The CFR: January 23, 2007:
- http://www.cfr.org/publication/12489/leslie_gelb_before_the_senate_foreign_
relations_committee.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3325%2Fleslie_h_gelb
-
- [16] Bernard Gwertzman, Gelb: Federalism Is Most
Promising Way to End Civil War in Iraq. CFR: October 16, 2007:
- http://www.cfr.org/publication/14531/gelb.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F3325%2Fleslie_h_gelb
-
- [17] Robin Wright, Nonpartisan Group Calls for Three-State
Split in Iraq. The Washington Post: August 17, 2007: <
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081700918.html
-
- [18] AP, French report: Former U.N. envoy Bolton
says U.S. has 'no strategic interest' in united Iraq. International
Herald Tribune: January 29, 2007:
- http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/29/europe/EU-GEN-France-US-Iraq.php
-
-
-
- Andrew G. Marshall contributed to breaking the Climate
Change consensus in a celebrated 2006 article entitled <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086>Global
Warming A Convenient Lie, in which he challenged the findings underlying
Al Gore's documentary. According to Marshall, 'as soon as people
start to state that "the debate is over", beware, because the
fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over'. Andrew
Marshall has also written on the militarization of Central Africa, national
security issues and the process of integration of North America. He is
also a contributor to GeopoliticalMonitor.com
- He is currently a researcher at the Centre for Research
on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal and is studying political
science and history at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia.
-
-
- Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the
sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those
of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
-
- index.php?context=section§ionName=membersh n
- To become a Member of Global Research
-
- The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text &
title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed.
For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including
commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
-
- www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding
of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.
-
- For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
-
- © Copyright Andrew G. Marshall, <http://www.globalresearch.ca>GlobalResearch.ca,
2008
|
