Back to Iraq: America’s Middle East Meat Grinder
• Has U.S. grand strategy for regional Balkanization and world war been revealed?
By Ronald L. Ray —
Half a million Iraqis, living the fulfillment of Saddam Hussein’s prophetic last words—“Hell is here, in your Iraq!”—are fleeing before a purportedly unstoppable blitzkrieg of 20,000-60,000 militia of the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” (ISIS), more correctly known as the “Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant.” Is this merely, as the establishment media claims, United States-backed Syrian insurgents gone rogue? Or is the whole thing an orchestrated plot to find the “back door” into Syria and Iran, and to reconfigure the entire Middle East for greater U.S.-Israeli domination?
American lapdog media claim the human-heart-eating butchers now rolling across Iraq, cutting the throats of “apostate” Muslims and crucifying Christians, are just “black-ops” gone horribly wrong: mercenaries strangely more powerful than a sovereign nation. But both French foreign policy analyst Thierry Meyssan and the German-language web-site, “National Journal,” have published reports which indicate strongly that ISIS is the vanguard of an unimaginably massive U.S. strategic operation.
Sunni-Muslim ISIS was founded and is funded by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), with cooperation of Israel’s Mossad. Although Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the ground commander, the terrorists actually are controlled by Saudi Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, brother of the Saudis’ current U.S./UK ambassador—and former secret service chief—and their foreign minister. In May, al-Faisal purchased a weapons factory in Jewish-run Ukraine, from which the Turks transported arms to ISIS. All the more intriguing, then, the January statement of Lebanon’s president, “Long live Saudi Arabia!”
The U.S., also, funneled expensive, modern military equipment to ISIS through Turkey, which now feels betrayed after ISIS attacks on the Turkish consulate and another site. More has been seized from the “fleeing” Iraqi army, along with $429 million in cash—sufficient to pay the militia for an entire year.
Syrian secret service reports that ISIS is led by U.S., French and Saudi officers were confirmed early this year by prisoners from America and five European nations released by the terrorists. Mysteriously, the ex-prisoners quickly retracted their claims. Another report suggests ISIS was trained by the U.S. at a secret base in Jordan.
Further hints of a globalist grand strategy arise from Iraqi abandonment without a fight of the Kurdish holy city of Kirkuk to the Israel-friendly Kurds in the north—another step toward an independent Kurdistan, comprising parts of Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Iran, too, has a Kurdish population.
These events may leave the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with only a portion of the country. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s turn to Shiite Iran, with apparent U.S. endorsement, thus makes sense but may result in absorption of Iraq’s Shiite regions by its former enemy. Meyssan suggests the ISIS operation is the spearhead of a revived U.S. military plan to divide Iraq and the Mideast into smaller, more controllable ethno-religious countries. The current destabilization also serves the longtime strategic goal of “Greater Israel,” from the Nile to the Euphrates.
If America re-enters Iraq against ISIS, it provides a convenient “back door” to Syria and possibly Iran, to Israel’s great joy. CIA-founded ISIS and similar groups in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia further serve the ultimate goal of encircling and strangling Russia and even China. What will be the two countries’ response? For now, it seems certain we are witnessing the deliberate Balkanization of the Mideast by the U.S. and Israel. Mimicking political strategies of a century ago, a new world war is at hand.
Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.
Back to Iraq
• Is America’s Frankenstein monster out of control in Syria & Iraq?
By Pete Papaherakles
Just when the United States seemed to finally be ending its 13-year wars in the Middle East, Iraq is turning into a powder keg once again, threatening to draw America right back into another Iraq war that could escalate and spill over into Syria and the greater Middle East.
As this article is written, the aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush and five other warships are in the Persian Gulf. Hundreds of Marines and dozens of helicopters are on standby for whatever President Barack Obama orders.
Will Obama resist the warpath of the neocons or is he looking for a backdoor entry into Syria?
The White House insisted that the U.S. would not be sending combat troops to Iraq, but many are concerned that the allegedly limited deployment will escalate beyond just protecting the U.S. embassy and other American interests.
The al Qaeda-affiliated jihadist army known as ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria)—basically created and funded by the U.S. and its allies—is wreaking havoc from Syria across Iraq, butchering and beheading its way toward Baghdad. Unable to hold back this “new” Sunni Islamic menace, the Shiite-led government of besieged Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is asking for help from the international community, including fellow Shiite nation Iran.
Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the U.S. is willing to talk with Iran to stem the ISIS advance and would not rule out possible military cooperation with the Persian country.
Had George W. Bush and the neocons not invaded Iraq in 2003, none of this would be happening. Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States, was not responsible for the attacks on America on 9-11, did not have weapons of mass destruction and did not massacre tens of thousands of his own people. Yet the U.S. invaded Iraq anyway, hanged Saddam, assassinated his family and murdered over a million innocent Iraqis based on nothing but lies. We have drained the coffers of our country, spending $2 trillion in a drawn-out war that was to bring democracy and stability to the country—but has done just the opposite.
Iraq was infinitely more stable and prosperous under Saddam. It has now become an irreparable, depleted uranium toxic hellhole with an angry, traumatized, uprooted population with nothing left to live for but revenge. The Iraqi government we set up is utterly unable to run the country.
The irony, of course, is that “al Qaeda” and ISIS would never have been in Iraq had it not been for the illegal and inhumane U.S. invasion, nor would they have been in Syria if it were not for the fact that the U.S., NATO and the West in tandem had organized, funded, trained, armed and directed them since their inception.
Is Obama now really going to fight against the same rebel force he helped create? The best way for the U.S. to deal with ISIS is to stop funding it and abandon the failed interventionist policies that have been the staple of U.S. foreign policy for far too many decades.
AMERICAN FREE PRESS hates to say it, but we told you so.
Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP and is also AFP’s outreach director. Pete is interested in getting AFP writers and editors on the podium at patriotic events. Call him at 202-544-5977 if you know of an event you think AFP should attend.
End Chief Executives’ Perpetual War Power
• 2002 act granting U.S. presidents free rein to attack Iraq seen by many as the driving force in unending bloodshed
• Withdrawing HJR 114 would help break the cycle of war
By Mark Anderson
Just when we thought America was all but totally gone from the Middle East, U.S. military forces to some degree may return—to Iraq. As this story was updated, the U.S. had sent about 300 military “advisers” to Iraq. And U.S. warships have increased their already strong presence in the Persian Gulf.
As the Washington journal Roll Call noted, “President Barack Obama . . . is considering ‘targeted’ and ‘selected’ military actions in Iraq, short of sending U.S. troops, to turn back rebel forces, but wants assurances that the Iraqi government will take steps to end sectarian strife.”
At the White House, Obama said he will keep the American people informed about his decision. He also claimed he’d consult Congress. Furthermore, he wants to ensure that any U.S. military action, however limited, is “effective.”
Yet Obama so far has stopped short of saying whether or not he would ask Congress to actually vote on this matter.
The President added he would not be making an overnight decision, while stressing that he wants the Iraqi leadership’s assurance that it will deal with domestic political problems and calm unrest that has led to attacks on Baghdad.
A key point to keep in mind is that the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq remains in effect—which is an ongoing “free hand” for the President to prosecute war. If that power is not withdrawn, the next President will inherit it.
Some observers have noted that any U.S. attack may disrupt the flow of oil and affect already-high oil prices. If any disruption occurs, Obama hopes other Persian Gulf countries can make up for any oil shortfalls.
The freedom and stability of Iraq was supposed to be the core goal of U.S. military operations that have lobbed bombs and shot bullets in that nation since March of 2003. For the U.S. to admit that the current unrest is bad enough to justify sending forces back to Iraq begs the question: Were the multi-billions spent to attack, subdue and occupy Iraq for more than 10 years simply wasted?
Put another way, can more money and munitions do what money and munitions have already failed to do? Or is the real lesson that an interventionist foreign policy simply cannot work?
What’s rarely reported by most media, but which AFP long ago reported, is that reconstruction projects in Iraq to replace destroyed buildings and infrastructure often have been botched. Some buildings have been rebuilt—only to find that they’re unsafe for human occupancy. And corruption has tainted the process.
As rival factions pick up the pieces in Iraq, those reportedly creating this unrest—whether friend or foe of the U.S.-backed regime—undoubtedly see a grim aftermath in many parts of Iraq.
What we may find in the end is that the very act of Congress in 2002 to grant an open-ended use of force—where victory is never defined, much less achieved—is the fundamental cause of Iraq’s misery. Yet the White House, by seriously considering renewed military action in Iraq, is basically saying that more of the same is the answer.
That highlights the essential lesson: War begets more unrest and more war. And the process will never be arrested until a drastic overhaul of U.S. foreign policy is done.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote, “The crisis or the current situation in Iraq is the result of the regime’s own failings,” referring to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s regime that runs Iraq.
Blumenthal added that Maliki’s regime “has failed to be inclusive,” while adding: “It has relied on sectarian divisions, and the crumbling of its army reflects those failures in governance.”
Blumenthal said that despite his opposition to significant military action in Iraq, he would like to hear concrete options from Obama. Blumenthal added: “And I would oppose any prolonged and active military engagement.”
It’s fine for Blumenthal and other like-minded lawmakers to request specifics and demand a current vote. But to really stop prolonged engagement, Congress needs to take a longer-range view and overturn the Iraq war authorization that has been in effect since it was first passed by Congress during the George W. Bush regime on October 16, 2002.
It was passed in the form of House Joint Resolution 114 (Public Law 107-243, 107th Congress, Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq).
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—who voted for that same 2002 resolution against Iraq when she was a New York senator—may run for president. If by chance she were to enter the Oval Office, she would inherit the Iraq war-resolution powers. That is quite unsettling, given the relentless abuse of power showcased over the years by she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton.
On June 13, Mrs. Clinton seemed to dismiss the possibility of U.S. troops returning to Iraq. She believes Iraq is falling apart because Prime Minister al-Maliki failed to reach out to Iraq’s various religious and ethnic factions.
Appearing at a George Washington University event to promote her memoirs, Mrs. Clinton remarked: “There’s no reason that I know of that we would sacrifice a single American life for that.”
Yet she acknowledged that the situation in Iraq—reportedly spurred by Sunni fighters from Syria who oppose Maliki’s Shiite Muslim regime—could spiral out of control and spill across borders, thereby becoming a major regional war. Mrs. Clinton’s skeptical stance may mean very little, however, in a nation whose leaders have put the nation on an endless war-footing and maintain a permanent standing army, something that the nation’s founders opposed.
Blumenthal’s and Mrs. Clinton’s arrogant attitude is typical for Washington. In truth, the U.S. government bears sole responsibility for what has been occurring in Iraq over the last decade. By attacking the country and assisting in the murder of its leader, Saddam Hussein, the United States destroyed Iraq, leaving it in a state of anarchy that is going to be vulnerable to violent radicals and thugs for the foreseeable future.
SUGGESTED ACTION: Having allowed the transfer of such war authority from President George W. Bush over to Barack Obama is enough. Congress now has the chance to prevent the next president from inheriting a virtually permanent mandate to attack Iraq. Call House and Senate members at 202-224-3121 or 225-3121 and tell them not only to move against U.S. re-involvement in Iraq right now, but also to close the books on HJR 114.
Mark Anderson is roving editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He will be in Denmark this year to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Call 202-544-5977, Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, to see how you can help.