Thursday, November 30, 2006

Are the 70,000 Pentagon Mercs in Iraq killing Shias, Sunnis?

(Thanks to the Iguana for pointing out this article, as well as some very interesting comments.)

AlJazeera:
"Could some of the Pentagon’s hired Mercenaries be the real perpetrators of the daily bombings and assassinations of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq?

Is the current disaster taking place in the war-torn country part of a wider plot to provoke a U.S./Israeli planned civil war that will dismember Iraq?

That is what’s being said in Young Pelton’s upcoming book “Licensed To Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror”

Pelton, a journalist, filmmaker, and explorer who authored The World's Most Dangerous Places, Come Back Alive, The Adventurist, and Three Worlds Gone Mad, suggests that there are more than 70,000 armed men working as security contractors in Iraq to back the U.S. military as the U.S. begins to draw down troops."

Some people don't believe anything in Al Jazeera. I say disbelieve it at your own risk.

But check out the comments after the story for a sampling of what some people think is really going on. Then remember that virtually everything that the Bush administration has told us about, well, virtually everything, has been nothing but spin and lies.

Here's one of those comments:
yes,yes,yes of course yes.these are american and british agents who are killing both shias and sunnis and their puppet fox medias confusing the innocent people.there is no civil or any kind of war between innocent muslims.may be the americans and british can hide their crimes from people but they cant hide themselves before god,who is watching every step.the system and discipline of god is most perfect that no one can ranaway with such crimes.god will never forget it.although,i dont like saddam but i still remember his words "the desert of iraq will become grave yard for occupation forces" at least saddam was right with this.no matter how much muslims are killed by america and britain but iraq will be the grave yard for american and british proudness and honor.no matter how america and britain use their "tricks" of crimes but the piller of their power and prestige has been damaged once and for all.chaney's trips can save nothing.the chaneys have no value in the future of world.
The immediate point is that, judging from the comments section of that article, perceptions like this, whether they are true or not, are apparently common in Iraq.

Even more troubling is the possibility that this idea might be closer to the truth than the "chaos, chaos, all is chaos—as thought consumed with madness, former friends and family are now slaughtering each other" that we are hearing daily in the media.

But ask yourself: What was, and is, the real objective of the Iraq War? We know what it isn't—spreading democracy, eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction, stabilizing the Middle East, and whatever else Bush has said lately. Oil? Saddam sold us piles of oil. We didn't have to go to war to get oil out of Iraq. To protect ourself from an evil dictator? Saddam did not threaten us. We support dictators just about as bad as Saddam all the time, without batting an eye. To battle Islamic Fundamentalism? To help Iraqi women? Hah! Iraq was the most secular of Middle Eastern countries before we destroyed it. Women were commen in all parts of Iraqi society—without covering themselves up. Now they cannot teach, work outside the house, or even walk the streets safely.

So what was the purpose of the war, really? Why are huge permanent bases being built there, and why aren't they ever mentioned? Who gains from provoking a real Civil War in Iraq? Who would benefit from seeing it permanently skewered into small fighting factions?

And who had a goal of dividing up troublesome countries—like Yugoslavia, like Iraq— years ago?

Here's some of what Mike Whitney had to say, forseeing where we are now over a year ago:

The Lords of War
by Mike Whitney
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 29, 2005

[. . .]
The sudden breakdown in the talks on the proposed constitution is an ominous sign that the violence in Iraq is likely to escalate dramatically in the coming months. The Sunnis, who represent 20% of the population and the vast majority of the Iraqi resistance, have played a minor role in drawing up the constitution. The Shiites and Kurds have dominated the negotiations and composed a document that will divide the country into three nearly autonomous regions, leaving the Sunnis in an area with miniscule oil resources.

The Shiites have managed to introduce Islam as the religion of the state and “a primary source of legislation,” ensuring that it will be an integral part of the legal system all the way up to the Supreme Court. Americans who may have thought that we were fighting for democracy in Iraq may want to read Article 2 of the constitution:


Paragraph 1: …Islam is the official religion of the state, and is a fundamental source for legislation. No law may be legislated that contravenes the essential verities of Islamic Law.

“By specifying Islamic Law this text enshrines Shariah or Islamic Canon Law quite explicitly in the constitution and would allow religious jurists to question secular legislation” (Juan Cole)

Cindy Sheehan has every right to ask if this is the “noble cause” for which her son died.

In just two years Bush has managed to achieve bin Laden’s dream of establishing an Islamic Theocracy and rebuilding the Caliphate. Who could have guessed that it would take the ham-fisted policies of the Bush administration to accomplish that goal?

Even more noteworthy, is the language in the constitution that provides for “vast autonomous regions” in the oil-rich north and south that will be controlled by the Kurds and Shiites respectively. That means that the central oil-poor region will be left to the Sunnis, who will lose political power accordingly.

Was the United States behind this strategy to divide Iraq into three parts?

In a word, yes.

Acting viceroy Zalmay Khalilzad is one of the founding members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and has been actively involved in the negotiations from the beginning. Khalilzad oversaw the writing of the Afghanistan constitution which, according to the New York Times, “declared it an ‘Islamic Republic’ in which no law could contradict Islam.” Khalilzad has played a similarly supportive role in Iraq and produced the very same results.

"In view of this, it is absurd to say that the administration is committed to democracy in the Middle East. Quite the contrary, they are looking to duplicate the Saudi regime which has served American colonial objectives for over 50 years.

Does the Bush administration support the division of Iraq, as well?

Of course. It was the US that introduced the deceptive language of “federalism”, probably conjured up in a right-wing think tank, to disguise their real intention of breaking the country up into smaller, more manageable mini-states. The principle of “divide and conquer” is still the time-honored strategy of imperial powers. There’s nothing new here.

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that, “The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges.” It was an astonishing admission of failure in all the original objectives of the war. The constitution moves the US mission in Iraq from mere disappointment to catastrophe. It is the calculated partitioning of the country and the destruction of Iraqi society through civil war. The administration’s plan to break up Iraq will end the political process, energize the resistance and, ultimately kill more American soldiers."

1 Comments:

Blogger Weedgardener said...

The extra quotation marks in the last four paragraphs had me a little confused, but a peek at the source article straightened me out.

So you beat Thom Hartmann to the story. You're so ahead of the curve!

Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 2:50:00 PM PST  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Web Site Counters
Staples Coupons