Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Former Ambassador Suspects Government Stoking Iraqi Civil War

Expand Messages
  • Paul Joseph Watson
    Former British Ambassador Suspects Government Stoking Iraqi Civil War Dire situation goes from bad to worse and provides only excuse for troops to stay Steve
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 18, 2006

      Former British Ambassador Suspects Government Stoking Iraqi Civil War
      Dire situation goes from bad to worse and provides only excuse for troops to stay

      Steve Watson & Paul Watson / Infowars.net | October 18 2006

      Former British Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, writes today that he suspects the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq has been intentionally provoked and continued by US and UK special forces in occupation of the country.

      Murray states:

      "As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK military. To what extent were they passively incompetent in facilitating the decline into civil war, and to what extent were they actively pursuing policies that promoted that outcome?"

      Murray suspects that as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy, the same strategy used by British forces in Iraq 85 years ago, Special forces are being used to intentionally foment civil war by training and equipping Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers.

      The adoption of the 'Salvador Option' by the US in Iraq was reported and discussed from the beginning of 2005 onwards.

      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."

      "The evidence that the US directly contributed to the creation of the current civil war in Iraq by its own secretive security strategy is compelling." Murray continues.

      He goes on to point out that US Congressman Denis Kucinich took up the issue in April of this year in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld requesting all records pertaining to the plan.

      Kucinich weighed in on the matter, providing further evidence that the Salvador Option was being implemented, he wrote:

      ."About one year before the Newsweek report on the "Salvador Option," it was reported in the American Prospect magazine on January 1, 2004 that part of $3 billion of the $87 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to fund operations in Iraq, signed into law on November 6, 2003, was designated for the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. According to the Prospect article, experts predicted that creation of this paramilitary unit would "lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists."

      John Pilger wrote further about the Salvador Option in the New Statesman earlier this year, shedding light on the origins of the plot:

      "The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador. "

      The confirmation that the Salvador Option had been invoked came quite publicly just over a year ago when British SAS were caught dressed in Arab garb and attempting to stage a terror attacks on Iraqi police. the soldiers were "rescued" by British troops using extreme force and a media blackout ensued.

      In addition to the Salvador option, we have also exposed other US and Israeli policy documents stating that it would be beneficial to the overalk strategy to engender strife in the region.

      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 bloodshed and misery and bloodshed won't stand in their way.

      That agenda was again underscored recently when Daniel Pipes, a highly influential Straussian Neo-Con media darling, who 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.

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

      "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. Even some of the war's intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be "ripped apart" by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to "expedite" such a collapse anyway."

      "One of the long-standing goals of such 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."

      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. Blame Iran and Syria for the anarchy (a sentiment echoed by Rice during the cartoon riots) and then move the troops in to decapitate two more rogue nations.

      With the news today that nine American troops have been killed in bombings and combat, raising to 67 the number of U.S. troops killed in October, and public support for the war at an all time low, things are only getting worse.

      A poll conducted for CNN over the weekend suggests support among Americans for the war in Iraq is dwindling to an all-time low. Just 34 percent of those polled say they support the war, while 64 percent say they oppose it.

      Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also acknowledged over the weekend that the overall strategy in Iraq is under review. Gen. told CNN that military plans, including the linchpin of U.S. exit strategy -- reliance on Iraqi forces to take up the fight -- is being reviewed.

      Furthermore, British General Richard Dannatt created a furor last week by saying that British troops should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

      A poll published Sunday said 74 percent of Britons agree with Dannatt's comments. He also won the support of several top newspapers and the British Army. Despite this overwhelming support, Dannatt was the subject of a vicious Whitehall whispering campaign as Labour ministers furious at his devastating outburst over Iraq called for him to be sacked.

      A new study published by The Lancet also emerged in the past week, estimating that 655,000 Iraqis, the vast majority of them innocent civilians, have been killed as a result of the bombing and occupation of Iraq.

      However, Bush would have the world believe that it is us, the war critics that are "Propagandizing," and "engaging In "Illogical Behavior". Likewise for the rest of his cronies who still go around telling everyone that being in Baghdad is “like being in Manhattan.”

      The AP also reported this week that reconstruction funds are drying up, that is the funds that did not go missing or were just wasted away, and America's big builders are pulling out, leaving completed projects and unfulfilled plans in the hands of an Iraqi government unprepared to manage either.

      The only excuse for not withdrawing troops with immediate effect is that the situation has become so bad that it is a catch 22 dilemma. This is hogwash. The real reason troops will stay in Iraq is nothing to do with protecting the Iraqi people or the "fledgling democracy", it is purely about geopolitical and strategic positioning. It's about an aggressive occupying force setting up base and being in position for it's next target.

      The myth that the occupation is about liberating the Iraqi people is now a known lie. Iraq is now a total and complete military police state, where the "liberated" people enjoy virtually no fundamental human rights. This so called freedom under occupation makes Saddam Hussein look like Nelson Mandela in comparison.

      The reasoning behind the war has changed half a dozen times. President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.

      In a remark he made last year about the constant attacks on US troops in Iraq, Bush said: "The insurgents are being defeated; that's why they're continuing to fight." This stunning Orwellian reversal of all logic epitomizes the worsening situation in Iraq. Measuring success in terms of how far you are from success. The Straussian ideology in full flow means that the Bush administration in it's own separate logical world actually does legitimately have a reason to remain in Iraq.

      The reality is that The Neocon hordes need to stay in Iraq to order to see through their insane Imperialist project for a new American Century, and the only way they can now do this is by practicing violence in the name of fighting violence. We used to be told that terrorists kidnapped and killed people, I guess it becomes moral when the 'authorities' are behind it.



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.