Nationalism or religious fundamentalism. Sectarianism or secularism. Unified sovereignty or Balkanization. Occupation or resistance. A future Iraq or no Iraq at all?

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

The plan for Iraq is (was) partition

In recent years, the US media has continued to float hints and innuendos that the Bush administration was coming up with an alternative plan to the Iraq quagmire.

But three events which occured over the past several weeks shed light on what is in store for Iraqis.

The first is news that presidential hopeful Senator Clinton has been secretely meeting with senior Bush advisers to map out a strategy for post-Bush Iraq.

The second is reports that Bush himself is prepping a new generation of US leaders for continuing administration (occupation) of Iraq.

And finally, we have the report that the US Congress passed a non-binding vote to break up Iraq into cantons.

These three tidbits of news offer us a glimpse into what the "alternative" approach to Iraq really is.

The partition of Iraq is vaunted as the alternative to a failed US policy in Iraq.

But use of the word "alternative" is grossly misleading, if not an outright lie.

The plan works thusly: The White House will be occupied by a Democratic president in 2009. This president will wax condemningly of the previous tenants and the failed policies inherent to the predecessor administration.

The Bush (GOP) administration will be painted as the "bad cop". The Democratic president will be the "good cop" valiantly trying to correct the errors of predecessors.

Because Bush continued to push for maintaining Iraqi sovereignty as a unified nation, his efforts in Iraq failed, made the US look bad in the eyes of the international community, and cost trillions in monies and human resources.

To correct this course, the Democratic president will say, we must reverse all his actions at the foundations. Why must American lives be sacrificed for a country that itself at its heart is disjointed. The Democrats will point to the Kurds as the epitome of a nation that has seceeded.

And that, unfortunately, is how the logic will go.

The US public is already being readied for partition. But not that partition will bother any of the US voters. As a matter of fact, they couldn't care less.

Therefore, it has always struck us as odd that US media reports the plan for Iraq is faltering.

How could it falter if all the elements were put in place in 1990 to lead to the partition of the country?

The plan in Iraq IS working. Militarily it has been defeated. Politically it is an unbridled success.

The plan was, is and always will be to destroy Iraq. No elections. No democracy. Not even social order. Simply division.

We mentioned that the plan was kicked into motion in 1990.

Here is how it works. Destroy the social order in Iraq through 13 years of sanctions. Then invade the country and remove the working political infrastructure under the guise that you are removing Baathists.

Five million Iraqis belonged to the Baath party. Mostly in name.

They held civil services jobs, worked in the ministrys, were advisors and consultants. All removed. Why? Because you do not want a nation that works well. You want to sow dysfunction.

Take this quote from an Al Jazeera article as evidence:
But for Badriya al-Amiri, 39, an Iraqi housewife, the failure to start schools on time has been yet another sign the country is increasingly dysfunctional.

She said: "Schools just started today, several weeks too late, all that because our country is insecure. I will not send my seven-year-old daughter to school, it is dangerous - I will send only her two teenaged brothers."

She has given up in any talk of political reconciliation.

"We do hope that God will take care of us," she said.
This woman is expressing what many Iraqis feel today. Their country is dysfunctional. It has been rendered thus.

And this was also part of the plan. For the plan to work, Iraqis must go along with plans for partition. Kurdish allies of the US are already on board despite the persistent ramblings of a few "Iraq" experts (editor: and bloggers) who insist that the Kurds realize they are better off right now than to earn the bellicosity of neighbors if they become independent.

The Hakim clan, financed and run by Iranian mullahs, is also on board.

And by creating the utmost level of decay, the planners hope that nationality and nationhood are sacrificed for order.

Lack of order, of course, comes by way of disbanding the army. A national army is the fortitude of a nation. Disband it and you disband the nation. Purge it. Now, next step. Create interim governments based strictly on sectarian lines.

When the IGC was formed thousands of Iraqi thinkers, philosophers, advisors and historians warned that it would be a recipe for tearing Iraq apart. Bremer at the time ignored them. Because he knew they were right. And because they knew he knew, they were killed off.

One by one. Or fled for their lives. After the IGC, which has already began to sow dissent among unified Iraqis, set up elections. Shape the elections so that the electorate head to the booths with sectarian and religious aspirations in mind. Not national ones.

The elections were simply the most intelligent (diabolical) ruse to ever stymie the Iraqi people. They ran to the election booths believing that Iraq would be safe, that they were voting for a democratic, peaceful future for Iraq.

But, unfortunately, there is no central media that serves the Iraqi people.

Had there been, it would have showed them articles such as Dividing Iraq In a report released in August, the Fund for Peace calls for the "managed" break-up of Iraq into three separate states with their own governments and representatives to the United Nations, but continued economic cooperation in a larger entity modeled on the European Union.

Prospects of Iraqi leaders being able to establish a multiethnic democracy are now "fanciful," the nonpartisan Washington think tank says in its report titled "A Way Out: The Union of Iraqi States."

Based on data tracked monthly since before the U.S. invasion in 2003, the report authored by Fund president Pauline Baker concludes that Iraq is now "near total collapse."

"While there may be pockets of improvement from the 'surge,' these are transitory and limited achievements that are about four years too late . . . Rather than fight fragmentation, it would be better to manage the trend with a view toward establishing an entirely new political order," the report concludes. Observe the terminology. "New political order."

Yet another article from Al Jazeera says:
Iraq will disintegrate and an independent Kurdish state is likely to emerge should the US military ends its presence there, say experts ahead of a crucial report on progress in the country by General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.
Nir Rosen, a journalist who has braved the dangers of Iraq many times and authored In the Belly of the Green Beast, says this of Iraq:
Iraq has been changed irrevocably, I think. I don’t think Iraq even -- you can say it exists anymore. ... Baghdad used to be the most important city in Iraq, and whoever controlled Baghdad controlled Iraq. These days, you have a collection of city states: Mosul, Basra, Baghdad, Kirkuk, Irbil, Sulaymaniyah. Each one is virtually independent, and they have their own warlords and their own militias. ... But no matter what, Iraq doesn’t exist anymore. Baghdad will never be in the hands of Sunnis again. Baghdad will be controlled by Shia militias. They’ve been cleansing all the Sunnis from Baghdad. So Sunnis are basically being pushed out of Iraq, period.

They can go to the Anbar Province, which isn’t a very friendly place. I think you’ll see that there won’t be any more elections in Iraq. Maliki is the last prime minister Iraq will have for a long time. There is neither the infrastructure for elections anymore, nor the desire to have them, nor the ability of Iraqi groups to cooperate anymore.

So what you’ll see is basically Mogadishu in Iraq: various warlords controlling small neighborhoods.
It is poignant that Rosen speaks of Somalia here because this leads us to our next point.

When the US invaded Iraq it used a loosely interpreted and purposefully confusing UN resolution as legal support. The US, much despite its disdain for the UN, resorted to the UN.

It did this again in 2004 when the UN legalized the US occupation.

And it is about to embark on yet another mandate for the US agenda in Iraq, this time, partition.

The UN partitioned Palestine in 1947 and will do so again in Iraq 60 years later.

The US needs an international mandate to divide Iraq. It can't do it alone.

After four years of doing nothing for the Iraqis, the UN is about to re-enter Iraq but for what purpose if there is no human rights to protect and no humanitarian assistance programs?

The plan for Iraq is and always has been partition.

(Contributed by Abu Ahmad from Iraqi media reports and contributing writers.
Translated from Arabic by Radhi.

Editors note: Some passages have been copied in entirety from other writers with their prior consent and permission. Thank you, brothers and sisters)