Iraq Mission Accomplished: They’re Not Fighting Us Anymore, They’re Fighting Each Other

As chaos reaches all time high coalition prepares to scale back occupation and march onwards to Syria and Iran

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Death tolls in Iraq are hitting all time highs and the worst cases of sectarian violence of the entire war are rampant throughout the country. Amid the chaos, the government has declared that everything is going well enough in Iraq for forces to be withdrawn. This statement is accurate, the strategy has always been one of dissolution and destabilization. We are not “cutting and running” because the mission has been accomplished.

The AP is reporting:

In the deadliest attack on a sectarian enclave since the beginning of the Iraq war, suspected Sunni-Arab militants used three suicide car bombs and two mortar rounds on the capital’s Shiite Sadr City slum to kill at least 150 people and wound 238 on Thursday, police said.

The Shiites responded almost immediately, firing 10 mortar rounds at the Abu Hanifa Sunni mosque in Azamiya, killing one person and wounding 14 people in an attack on the holiest Sunni shrine in Baghdad.

Sectarian fighting also broke in another part of northern Iraq on Thursday, when 30 Sunni insurgents armed with machine guns and mortars attacked the Shiite-controlled Health Ministry building.

The U.N. also this week reported that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll of the war. More than 3,700 were killed, with hundreds “bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing”, said the report.

If this isn’t civil war then what is?

Meanwhile yesterday in Parliament, the British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, stated that “the process of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces is well under way.” She said that she expected the coalition to hand over in Najaf province next month and in Maysan in January. Indeed, things were going so well in Basra that she had “confidence” that we may “achieve transition” in the spring.

The machinations of the Machiavellian’s are unfolding according to plan. Let Iraq cascade into chaos and dilute the insurgency by manipulating it to become fractious and watch in-fighting ensue.

Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict.

Stephen Zunes, professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, recently wrote,

“One of the long-standing goals of neoconservative intellectuals has been to see the Middle East broken up into smaller ethnic or sectarian mini-states, which would include not only large stateless nationalities like the Kurds, but Maronite Christians, Druze, Arab Shi’ites, and others. Such a policy comes not out of respect for the right of self-determination – indeed, the neocons have been steadfast opponents of the Palestinians’ desire for statehood, even alongside a secure Israel – but out of an imperial quest for divide-and-rule. The division of the Middle East has long been seen as a means of countering the threat of pan-Arab nationalism and, more recently, pan-Islamist movements.”

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said yesterday that The Iraq war is good for Israel. He praised God for President Bush and suggested that the current situation in Iraq is “so much better for the security and safety of Israel”.

Of course it is, because the Zionist agenda has always been to divide and conquer the middle East. After many previous attempts, it’s mission accomplished in Iraq now thanks to the neocons, that is why we have already seen a shift towards fomenting trouble in Syria with the decimation of Lebanon.

Furthermore, the timely assassination of Pierre Gemayel in Lebanon, which has been blamed on Syria, but some have attributed to Israeli intelligence, has again sullied Syria and stoked up ethnic and religious animosity in Lebanon.

Israeli policy documents have always stated that it would be beneficial to the overall strategy to engender strife in the middle east.

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.”

Ethnic cleansing, maimed children and thousands of dead American soldiers are a small price to pay because for the Globalists the end always justifies the means and untold misery and bloodshed won’t stand in their way.

The adoption of the ‘Salvador Option‘ by the US in Iraq, as reported and discussed from the beginning of 2005 onwards, also indicates that a shift in focus in the middle east is underway.

Newsweek reported that this Pentagon or CIA handled operation “would even extend across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions… The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries.”

That agenda was again underscored recently when Daniel Pipes, a highly influential Straussian Neo-Con media darling, told the New York Sun that a civil war would aid the US and Israel because it would entangle Iran and Syria and enable those countries to be picked off by the new world empire without the need to sell a direct invasion to the public.

A host of analysts and political experts agree that 2007 will see the bombing of nuclear facilities in Iran, with or without the approval of the US Congress. This is not surprising given that we have recently seen a spate of neoconservative and Israeli calls for the bombing to begin.

In a Sunday op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, Joshua Muarvchik, resident scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote:

“We must bomb Iran,” he said. “The path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere … Our options therefore are narrowed to two: we can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it.”

Furthermore, a recent FOX news discussion on Iraq bizarrely turned to Iran as a Wall Street analyst sated:

” The market wants us to end the insurgency and the war. You do that by bombing Tehran, not by getting it so some Iraqi woman doesn’t have to wear a burqa anymore.”

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh also”did not rule out’ preventive military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, in a recent interview with the English-language Jerusalem Post.

There is some speculation that the paradigm shift in the US with the “Baker Boys” re-emerging as leading players, indicates a power struggle between a Zionist/neoconservative faction and a CFR controlled globalist faction. In any case, the overall agenda of “divide and conquer” in the middle east remains the same. The Arab population will suffer the same fate whatever the outcome of this sideshow in-fighting.

The scale back in Iraq will not in any way shape or form involve a “withdrawal” of troops from the region. Most probably any troops leaving Iraq will simply be shifted to Afghanistan, which also descends deeper into chaos with every day.

The Marine Corps will need to increase in size to sustain deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. The empire is very much on the march.

Articles by: Steve Watson

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] 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: [email protected]