It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Divide and Conquer in Iraq: the memory hole at work

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
This is something I've been watching for some time now.

Back in April/May, Senator Joe Biden proposed a plan to unify Iraq by partitioning it.

Yes, that's right. Students of Orwell will recognise a classic example of "doublethink", the ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas in mind at once. C'mon Joe, is it unifying Iraq, or partitioning it? And who gets control of the oil? Is it going to be those ornery Sunnis, or the rather more malleable Kurds and Shias?

Oh, look, here's what an article from back in May says...


Biden and co-writer Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledged the opposition, and said the Sunnis “have to be given money to make their oil-poor region viable. The Constitution must be amended to guarantee Sunni areas 20 percent (approximately their proportion of the population) of all revenues.”

Biden and Gelb also wrote that President Bush “must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest).”


Somehow, I missed that last paragraph at the time. Yup, the good ol' USA, honest policeman of the world, is going to spend rather a lot of money keeping a "small but effective residual force" to do one thing that the Iraqi security forces are supposed to be doing and another thing that is really not their business ("keeping the neighbours honest", indeed! The breathtaking hypocrisy of that statement, the sheer, bare-faced brass neck of it, stops one cold). No doubt this tiny force will be garrisoned in the 11 or so permanent desert bases the US is building. So... it's probably not that tiny then, either. Or maybe each base will just house a few guys who want lots of legroom.

Some months pass. The Biden plan passes into the memory hole. In case you don't know, that's another Orwellian concept.

Now, we have this article in the UK Telegraph which describes how pretty much the exact same plan is now being put into operation, but it now looks like it's all the Iraqis' own idea!

Read the article as many times as you like - the name Joe Biden is conspicuous (for those of us with a reasonable memory) by its absence. None of the stories it links to are to do with the Biden proposal, either.

Actually, it's not quite the same plan, seemingly: they seem to have jettisoned the bit about subsidising that troublesome Sunni region. (It's "oil-poor", remember?) So the Sunnis are trying to avoid this path for Iraq, not least by raising the spectre (a canny move this) of the Shia region becoming ever closer to Iran.

The trouble is that, if true, this just gives the US more of an excuse than ever to invade Iran, which, let's face it, is still on the menu. Those who want to look at the history of oil referenced in my signature and then think about the impending opening of a Euro oil Bourse in Iran will draw their own conclusions about "punishment beatings" and so on.

But back to the Telegraph article. We may not have any mention of Biden, or of subsidising the Sunnis, but look at what we do have:


However the recent sectarian violence that has engulfed the country ever since the bombing in February of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, appears to have led to a marked radicalisation among Shia political leaders of what their federal state would involve... Abdel Aziz Hakim, the head of the SCIRI, has in recent months advocated a nine-province "super region" in the Shia south, where 60 per cent of the country's oil reserves are located.

It would have its own armed forces drawn from militias such as the Badr Brigade, which is run by the SCIRI, already operating in the region and have some control over oil exploration.


So... stuff the Sunnis, and, indeed, SCIRI is definitely close to Iran. Interesting.

But what I find even more interesting, as denoted by my bolding it in the extract above, is the reference to the bombing of the Golden Mosque. Let's just take a quick look at the


In this thread about the US using Iraqis as suicide bombers I linked to the Biden plan when it came out back in May.Wikipedia entry:


On February 22, 2006, at 6:55 a.m. (0355 UTC), explosions occurred at al-Askari Mosque, effectively destroying its golden dome and severely damaging the mosque. Several men, one wearing a military uniform, had earlier entered the mosque, tied up the guards there and set explosives, resulting in the blast. Two bombs were set off by five to seven men dressed as personnel of the Iraqi Special forces who entered the shrine during the morning.


You know, I'd really like to find the theatrical costumier who's got premises in Iraq and evidently a warehouse chock full of various Iraqi uniforms. In these situations, it's always "men dressed as"... Iraqi policemen, Special Forces.... whoever. The kind of wilful blindness that allows you to cite facts like this but then blame the bombing on "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is perplexing to me. AQII clearly have a fondness for dressing up!

Now I think that US and UK involvement in fomenting sectarian violence had been on the agenda ever since the demonstration in April 2003 at the Abu Hanafi Mosque, where Sunnis and Shias united in calls for the US to get out. Here's an article detailing the protests that day. Yes, the two sides had their differences, but they were united in the face of a common enemy.

That was not a state of affairs that could be allowed to persist. Enter the agents provocateurs bombing mosques, and the Iraqi suicide bombers who were unwitting US pawns.

Now, the long-heralded plan for the partition of Iraq is becoming a reality.

Divide and conquer.




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
The partitioning of Iraq was in the table even before the invasion of the country. Ahmed Chalabi was the Pentagon’s favorite candidate to rule post-Saddam Iraq before falling out of grace.

He was the one that came with the idea of dividing Iraq in three sections for the oil companies benefit, keeping the rich oil lands to the more friendly groups that favor US.

I can not believe that all the conspiracies about pre-war Iraq is coming to be true. The speculations about all the plans for that country is actually going to happen with civil war or no.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Have you got a link to the Chalabi plan? It would be kind of cool to see how far back this goes and how it's changed along the way.

It also implies that Chalabi knew that there would be resistance... one wonders how much of the "the Iraqis will greet us as liberators" BS the neocons actually believed.

And Marg - you might like to click on the last link of my signature - I think you'll enjoy the video you'll find there...



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   


posted by rich23

Senator Joe Biden proposed a plan to unify Iraq by partitioning it. C'mon Joe, is it unifying Iraq, or partitioning it? And who gets control of the oil? Here's what an article from back in May says . .


Iraq is already partitioned. The Kurds in the north have about 1/4th the land area and 1/6th of the population. Last week the Kurdish president took down the Iraq flag and ran up the Kurd’s flag. There will be no Kurdistan but there is already an autonomous region. Kurds continue to participate in the effort at forming a viable Iraqi government as much to protect their own interest as to worry much what happens in the rest of Iraq. We may be watching a re-run of the “confessional” division of Lebanon being put in place in Iraq.

The Shia east and south-east of Iraq is a “puppet” region of Iran. Which leaves the central and west to the Sunni. But it is in this area where the significant minority of Shia and large majority of Sunni are competing for dominance. I saw 3-4 weeks ago there was oil under Baghdad or at least in that region. That’s for the future, though, if true.

One commentator said the US could do well by withdrawing all but 30,000 soldiers into the Kurds area, close to Iran, and letting nature take its course in the contested regions. We can’t prevent violence, our presence adds fuel to the fire, and all we are doing is incurring casualties, inflicting casualties and engendering more “Hate America” sentiment. Problem? The current Bush43 administration is unwilling to admit any errors or mistakes.



Mod Note: Trim Those Quotes - Please Review this link



[edit on 13-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy
Ahmed Chalabi's long and winding road from (and to?) Baghdad

www.prospect.org...

The blue prints for post-war Iraq were already in the making thanks to Chalabis,



October 2002 Chalabi had a series of meetings with three major U.S. oil firms in Washington. "The oil people are naturally nervous," says INC spokesman Zaab Sethna, who took part in the meetings between Chalabi and the oil executives



Chalabi blurted to The Washington Post that the INC intends to reward its American friends. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," he proclaimed.


He wanted to be the prime minister but he got to be in the oil ministry.



In late September, in "The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement," the Heritage Foundation's Ariel Cohen put forward a nearly complete scheme for the privatization of Iraq's oil, creating three separate companies for southern Iraq,




[edit on 12-9-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
All these informative posts got me to thinking: the partitioning of Iraq started in 1992, with the establishment of the southern no-fly zone (north was 1991), contrary to what Daddy Bush said

We seek Iraq's compliance, not its partition.

www.findarticles.com...

Now, from the following, I gather that these no-fly zones could have been for war preparation, AND intelligence gathering (like hell we didn't know what was going on!)


In testimony before Congress in 2001, General Tommy Franks, the commander of US Central Command said the purpose of the zones is to demonstrate "a continued and significant troop presence to enhance deterrence and show the United States' commitment to force Saddam to comply with sanctions and WMD inspections." He said the zones are designed to "provide access and interaction with Gulf governments; ensure Iraq cannot easily repair and improve its anti-aircraft capabilities within the no-fly zones; and, ensure the ingress and egress routes that would be necessary to prosecute an expanded war against Iraq remain sufficiently clear of sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems."

Frank's explanation is far from the reported humanitarian aims of the zones. As Washington continues its troop build up in the region, the Pentagon is using the no-fly zones to prepare combat pilots for a large-scale attack on Iraq. Eliot Cohen, who directed the Air Force study of the Persian Gulf War bombing campaign said recently the no-fly zones "have an added benefit in intelligence and training."

www.counterpunch.org...


So the tearing away was begun already, with this current war making the final separation.
Funny how the history of these no-fly zones has been shunted to a dark corner.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Thanks Desert, great points and info.

This "brains trust" aspect of ATS is one of the things I really like about the site. You put stuff up and some people try to knock it down but others come with different pieces to make a bigger picture.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   


said by rich23

You know, I'd really like to find the theatrical costumier who's got premises in Iraq and evidently a warehouse chock full of various Iraqi uniforms. In these situations, it's always "men dressed as"... Iraqi policemen, Special Forces.... whoever. The kind of wilful blindness that allows you to cite facts like this but then blame the bombing on "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is perplexing to me. AQII clearly have a fondness for dressing up!


It's probably quite easy for an insurgent to become a member of the Iraqi police force, military and special forces and then smuggle out uniforms and equipment.

I don't think there's a conspiracy there.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   


posted by AceOfBase

It's probably easy for an insurgent to become a member of the Iraqi police, military and special forces, then to smuggle out uniforms and equipment. I don't think there's a conspiracy there. [Edited by Don W]



I’ve given some thought to this problem, both in Iraq and in my own city of Jacksonville FL, which “celebrated” its 100th homicide the last day of August, and is well on its way to a record! 78 killings were by firearm, but we totally ignore that. If we had the same proportion of guns per person they have in Denmark, for example, homicides would fall by 90%. It is hard work to club a person to death. Something most malefactors are adverse to. I digress.

Neighborhood police. It seems to me the problem is found in the system of central policing. Jax policing is done by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. There are 2,300 JSO deputies. The population is 800,000. Area is 600 sq miles. 168 hours in a week, divided by 40 hours per deputy, means at best, we’d have 550 on duty at any given time. If you allow for sick leave, vacation, training, and court duty, this number is probably reduced to 400. Allowing for supervision, record keeping, planning, and other non-policing activities, you’d have no more than 60% of the force on patrol. You might have no more than 240 deputies keeping order, about 1 man or woman per 3.500 citizens.

OTOH, if each definable neighborhood was able to choose a few good men and true, to be its own police, then the neighbors would likely pick a person who was reliable, trustworthy and willing. Monthly neighborhood meetings could identify problems for their police to address. If help was needed temporarily, other neighbors could volunteer. To adapt a quip assigned to Sam Rayburn, all policing is local.

Post Script. I estimate the average cost to taxpayers per JSO deputy to be $65,000 a year. With 2,300 deputes, that is $1.5 billion a year. Not a small sum. If the city was divided into 50 neighborhoods, and if half the policing money was set aside for neighborhood police, then you’d have $15 million per neighborhood.

If you set aside 90% of the money for police salaries and you paid each neighborhood deputy $200 per 10 hour shift, you could have 270 neighborhood police available on an as-needed basis, to pull 250 shifts per year. Keep in mind that all good policing depends on informants. The first thing a new cop on the beat does is develop his own list of reliable informants. A dangerous undertaking in many cases, because most cops are not street smart. Sometimes it is the informant who is “running” the law enforcement and not the other way round. This hazard would not be as much of a problem with neighborhood police.

The other half of JSO’s $1.5 billion annual budget would be to furnish crime experts and other back-up services.



[edit on 9/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
That's... er... great, Don, but weren't we talking about Iraq? Sorry, must have nodded off for a moment there.

Ace of Base... there's a thread linked somewhere on this one that refers to death squads. If you do any research into the sightings of these death squads, you'll find that they're actually divisions of the Iraqi police. Not "rotten apples", or "rogue elements", but properly financed and specially trained members of particular sections of Iraq's police forces.

The fact is that they are being used to sow sectarian violence and as agents provocateurs.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   


posted by rich23

That's... er... great, Don, but weren't we talking about Iraq? Sorry, must have nodded off for a moment there . . the fact is that they are being used to sow sectarian violence and as agents provocateurs.


I did go pretty far but I meant to advocate that a central police force is vulnerable to this kind of sectarian division, whereas, neighborhood police can be selected by the people tho be policed and are in fact, an indispensable part of the neighborhood being policed. People know the cops, the cops know the people.

Death squads are unlikely in such a setting



[edit on 9/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Very reassuring for Jacksonville. Not, if I'm understanding your point correctly, for Iraq.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   


posted by rich23

Very reassuring for Jacksonville. Not, if I'm understanding your point correctly, for Iraq.



It seems some in the uniformed Iraqi police are also doing tortures and murders of other Iraqi. I assume it is Shia cops killing Sunni, and Sunni cops killing Shia.

I do not know how a person is selected to be a cop in Baghdad. If they do like they do in America, there will be an advertisement setting out the general qualifications. Applicants will be referred to some guy or guys we call a Human Resource expert. And etc. The, the selected to-be cops get some training. Based on the number of cops being killed, I’d say the training is not long. The need is great for “uniforms” on the street. It may be more like the military’s OJT - On the Job Training.

I was thinking this is the weak link in the new cop system. Human Resources do not know the individuals, personally. Because of this very serious problem, a new approach should be considered. It seems to me the selection of police must be at the “beat” level. Later, when there is more security, the centralized force can be resumed.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Oh they will divide to keep the peace (or try to). Iraq is as good as annexed anyway.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Oh they will divide to keep the peace (or try to). Iraq is as good as annexed anyway.


Perhaps that would be what will be sold to the public that opposes the war, but what will happen when the fights for who got the biggest oil fields starts to hit the region?

What will they call the Iraqis that will fight for that oil and for keeping Iraq united.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
What an interesting idea, Marg! I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Prime Minister al-Maliki has already visited Tehran and President Ahmadinejad, to get support for security. Can't play the old enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend with Iraq anymore! Wish I had a crystal ball
Hey, will there be an election to decide about dividing the country--who would decide?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
What will they call the Iraqis that will fight for that oil and for keeping Iraq united.


Nice point.

They'll call them insurgents, though. It will be interesting watching how the media try to sell the break-up as a good thing, then wonder why the violence goes on.

It will also be interesting to see if Iran offers them an excuse to invade by interfering.

It would be ironic if Iran were invaded for supporting the division of Iraq.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I say.. Iran has a right to kick some butt.

I'm sick of the atrocities in Iraq, and the sell outs "I'm antiwar but I support troops!"

Moore exposed a good proportion as felons and violence lovers.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
It will be interesting watching how the media try to sell the break-up as a good thing, then wonder why the violence goes on.

It will also be interesting to see if Iran offers them an excuse to invade by interfering.

It would be ironic if Iran were invaded for supporting the division of Iraq.


I just had the thought that this is all turning into a Fellini film. Oh, the tragic absurdity!



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I've been doing a little background reading, and apparently Saddam himself had to do with a Kurdish Autonomy Act passed through the Iraq legislature on March 11 1974. The Barzani tribe rejected it, though, perhaps because it involved a certain amount of ethnic cleansing (NOTE - this is my speculation, I have not yet done enough reading to get a clear picture of events).... it should be noted that the partition of Iraq is actually a new idea. The British Mandate (love that phrase, as it actually means the opposite of what it implies in a truly Orwellian way) was intended to suppress Kurdish independence in the interests of maintaining British control of the oil in Iraq. This goes back to the first world war, and for an interesting disquisition on the subject by a very entertaining guy, please click on the history of oil link in my signature.

Anyway, we now have the latest instalment of the saga of the partition of Iraq.

Here is an article from yesterday's Sunday Times that suggests James Baker (now where have I heard that name before? Never mind, rhetorical question) will be selling the idea of "partition lite" from his Iraq study group.


The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month’s congressional elections amid signs that sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces are spiralling out of control. The conflict is claiming the lives of 100 civilians a day and bombings have reached record levels.

The Baker commission 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”.


Mmm... "cut and run" vs "stay the course"... and now a Third Way. Hurrah!


His group will not advise “partition”, but is believed to favour a division of the country that will devolve power and security to the regions, leaving a skeletal national government in Baghdad in charge of foreign affairs, border protection and the distribution of oil revenue.

The Iraqi government will be encouraged to hold a constitutional conference paving the way for greater devolution. Iran and Syria will be urged to back a regional settlement that could be brokered at an international conference.


Makes me wondering what this journalist's on. Iran is going to be toast pretty soon, by the looks of things. Mind you, this newspaper's tomorrow's chip wrapping, so what does he care?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join