Iraq analysis

[Al-khiyal]

Originally posted by MrMeaner1
The question is why would they do that? In my opinion it doesn't serve their objectives if Iraq follow a path of unrest (Civil War).

In the face of all the domestic and international calls for the Americans to end their occupation of Iraq it would serve as a useful excuse for the U.S. to stay, wouldn't it?

Iraq violence puts troop cuts in doubt

[FORTUNATO]

Originally posted by Al-khiyal


Former CIA analyst a and presidential advisor Ray McGovern does not rule out Western involvement in this week's Askariya mosque bombing in light of previous false flag operations that have advanced hidden agendas of the ruling élite....

Former CIA analyst: Western intelligence may be behind Iraq mosque bombing

Ha
Each morning I read new American Joke
Why it is a joke?
The UK & US Strategist plan a Policy of "Divide to reign" in Iraq, so since 1991 they plan and execute, Shias, Sunnis; Kurds, washbasins, etc....

Now! this policy is turning against them, because the Chias declare that the real enemy is the Americans, and the Sunnis declare the same; even if the Sunni and Chias will fight each others American and British has noting to win.....policy of lose-lose

F-
-

[Al-khiyal]

The U.S. administration and its Pentagon stooges may try to advance the violence in Iraq as a justification for retaining troops there in greater numbers (their 'permanent bases' as still being lovingly constructed and fortified each passing day), and perhaps the U.S. media will spin this excuse to the American public.

A question that might usefully be asked is where was the U.S. military when Sunni mosques were being attacked all over Iraq and when rampaging mobs were butchering people on the streets?

Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday - blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies were sprawled with their hands still bound - and many of them had wound up at the morgue after what their families said was their abduction by the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

The U.S. military stood by and let all that happen. Hardly the strongest evidence for arguing that they should remain 'because of the violence'.

[Al-khiyal]

Tikrit joint prayer service described as ‘moment of national unity’, Sadrist cleric pledges that it is ‘just the beginning’

[Al-khiyal]

A first-ever survey of U.S. troops on the ground fighting a war overseas has revealed surprising findings, not the least of which is that an overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year

[Al-khiyal]

Civil war looms with 66 killed in Baghdad

[Al-khiyal]

As Iraq spirals deeper into chaos and perhaps civil war in the wake of the attack on the Golden Mosque, critics of the US-led invasion and occupation will no doubt refocus attention on the role of Israel in the march to war and the conduct of the occupation.

The Israeli role in Iraq has in fact been one of the open secrets of the US presence in Iraq, but the anger that details surrounding it would generate has made it very hard to determine its scope and extent.

This has led many Iraqis to imagine Israel as an omnipotent force pulling the strings of the United States to ensure that Iraq, previously one of Israel's most dangerous enemies, can never regain its former military and economic power. Even some experienced journalists have taken to blaming Israel for much that goes wrong in the country.

For example, a senior German reporter pulled this correspondent aside at Baghdad airport and confided that a new and top-secret Israeli "nuclear or radiation weapon" was responsible for reports of melted or liquefied Iraqi bodies. The actual culprit turned out to be white phosphorus, a weapon similar in effect to napalm, that US commanders recently admitted having deployed.

Some things are not in dispute, however. It is clear that US Special Forces trained in Israel to prepare for the kind of "Arab urban warfare" that Israel has extensive experience waging in the Occupied Territories. And evidence from Abu Ghraib and other detention centers reveals that the US has used many of the same coercive interrogation techniques deployed by Israel on Palestinian prisoners, much to the dismay of Israeli, Palestinian and international human-rights organizations.

More controversial than evidence of shared military and interrogation tactics has been the argument, widespread among critics of the invasion, that a coterie of neo-conservatives at the heart of the US administration planned the invasion in consultation with the Israeli government, and with the express goal of strengthening the position of the Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians and its remaining Arab antagonists.

Dubbed the "Likudization" of US foreign policy by several commentators, this line of argument claims that the power of the White House has, in essence, been hijacked by the Israeli government to further its parochial ends in the region.

Such an argument, however, betrays a serious misunderstanding of the US-Israeli relationship and, more important, of US goals in Iraq and the Middle East more broadly. It assumes that Israel and its supporters in the United States actually have the power to shape US policies in ways that are not in the interests of the US policymaking establishment. But this is nonsense.

The United States supports Israel not because of "shared values" and "democracy", but rather because for four decades Israel's actions - particularly those that ostensibly harm the chances for peace - have served US goals in the Middle East.....

Iraq: The wages of chaos