[R-G] Zmag: US plant to incite civil war in Iraq

[Fred Feldman]

Forward from mart 
===============================
----- Original Message ----- From: <nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com> Sent:
Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: [NYTr] Iraq: Bush Is Trying to
Incite Civil War 

Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit 

ZNet - Jan 15, 2005
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7030 

Bush's Grand Plan: Incite Civil War 

by Mike Whitney 

The Bush Administration is intentionally steering Iraq towards civil
war. The elections are merely the catalyst for igniting, what could be,
a massive social upheaval. 

This explains the bizarre insistence on voting when security is nearly
nonexistent and where a mere 7% of the people can even identify the
candidates. (This figure gleaned from Allawi's Baghdad newspaper,
Al-Sabah) Rumsfeld is using the elections as a springboard for
aggravating tensions between Sunnis and Shiites and for diverting
attention away from the troops. 


It's a foolhardy move that only magnifies the desperation of the present
situation. The Pentagon brass expected a "cakewalk" and, instead,
they've found themselves mired in a guerilla war. 


Everyone from Brent Scowcroft to Tom Friedman has speculated on the
likelihood of civil war. Their comments are more reflective of the hopes
of American elites than they are of realities on the ground. Sure,
Friedman would like to see Muslims killing Muslims, but it won't happen.
Tom hasn't guessed right on the war yet, and that's not about to change.
The same could be said for Rumsfeld. For a Sec-Def who regards
"information as power", Rumsfeld seems woefully blinkered by the true
nature of the fighting. He seems incapable of grasping even the most
basic elements of the conflict or the psychology that fuels it. Whatever
happened to the military mantra, "Know your enemy"? 

When you destroy a man's home and kill and disgrace his friends, he'll
fight back. And, when you rob a man of everything he has, including his
dignity, you leave him with one, solitary passion. rage. This rage is
now animating the resistance in ways that no one had previously
anticipated. The world's lone superpower is roped to the ground like
Gulliver and the Pentagon high-command is getting increasingly agitated.



Civil war can be messy. Inciting religious and sectarian hatreds tends
to disrupt the smooth execution of business; like the purging of
potential enemies and the extracting of vital resources. Never the less,
Rumsfeld is nearly out of options; "divide and conquer" may be all
that's left. If we glance at the last 3 imperial projects; Kosovo, Haiti
and Afghanistan, the very same strategy was applied. All three nations
have been effectively carved up, delivered to US multi-national
corporations, and reduced to warlordism or anarchy. Their outcome sets
the precedent for similar results in Iraq. Will Iraq be Balkenized along
ethnic and religious lines? 


That's what the Generals are hoping, and their plan is already in full
swing. The Marines deployed Shiite National Guards during the siege of
Falluja with the obvious intention of exacerbating tensions between the
two factions. The Kurdish Peshmerga was utilized in Mosul for the very
same purpose. Also, there have been a number of suspicious bombings
(particularly the attacks on Sunni clerics in Najaf and Kerbala) that
are not at all consistent with the insurgent pattern, but suggest a
clandestine (CIA?) operation to incite hostilities. Add to this the
projected election results, which will tilt heavily towards the Shiites,
and there's a real potential for internecine violence. It's easy to see
how Pentagon planners might think that these provocations could auger a
massive internal struggle. It won't happen, though. 


Whatever we may think of the Iraqis at this point, one thing is certain;
they know who their enemy is. The element of surprise or deception has
evaporated like the plumes of smoke dispersing over Falluja. They know
who we are, and they know they want us out. 

Deteriorating Security 

Rumsfeld finally seems to be grasping the seriousness of the
predicament. The security situation has deteriorated so dramatically
that even his support among elites is eroding. Last week foreign policy
Gurus, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, fired off a salvo of
criticism directed at the mishandling of the occupation. The normally
circumspect Brzezinski was particularly savage, slamming the war as a
sign of "moral decay"; a euphemism that will undoubtedly send shock
waves through America's boardrooms and think-tanks. 


James Dobbins of the conservative Rand Corporation was equally
ferocious, stating bluntly that "The beginning of wisdom is to realize
that the United States can't win." "Can't win?" 


Dobbins probably should have added, "Can't win, but won't leave," as the
appropriate adjunct to his first observation. American elites may
disparage the conduct of the occupation, but they've tied the nation's
future to its success and won't give up easily. 

Rumsfeld Shifts Gears 

There are signs that the recalcitrant Rumsfeld is beginning to get the
message. Last week he dispatched retired General Gary Luck to Iraq to
produce a detailed breakdown of force strength and vulnerabilities. When
Luck returns he will appear before Congress and make an energetic appeal
for more troops and stiffer resolve. He can be expected to draw a dismal
picture of a failed state that threatens to destabilize the entire
region unless America makes a greater commitment. Both the Congress and
the media will play a role in calling on the American people for
steadfastness in the face of a very long and bloody occupation. Many
believe that Luck's assessment will determine whether Bush will approach
Congress to reinstate the draft. 


Enlisting the skills of General Luck is an indication that Rumsfeld is
giving ground to his critics; that he is no longer elevating his
judgment above all others. His bungling of every aspect of the war has
limited his ability to act unilaterally. He will either have to
demonstrate some level of cooperation or step down. The war's two main
debacles so far can be directly pinned on Rumsfeld. First, he went in
"too light" (without sufficient manpower to secure the peace) and
second, he dismissed the 400,000 strong Iraqi military, the majority of
whom now comprise the resistance. The final outcome in Iraq will
certainly rest heavily on those two foolish choices. Leveling Falluja 

The siege of a Falluja was a crossroads for the American occupation. The
right-wing punditocracy insisted that the resistance in Falluja be
crushed by any means possible; preferably overwhelming force. The
Baghdad enclave of 
250,000 was decimated by the relentless pounding of US aerial
bombardment and a full-fledged ground assault that left over 700
civilians dead; 70% of whom were women and children. 


In the first attack on Falluja Lt. Col. B. P. McCoy noted that, "We
don't want to 'rubblize' the city. That will give the enemy more places
to hide." McCoy's injunction was ignored during the second 
(Nov 8) siege. The city has been both "rubblized" and rendered
"uninhabitable". (according to the Red Crescent) 


The Bush administration applied the "nuclear option" to Falluja;
leveling the city to send a message that future resistance would be
dealt with accordingly. The message was faithfully rejected. 


If anything, Falluja has only strengthened the resolve of the
anti-American forces and increased recruitment for the resistance. The
violence has spread and intensified throughout the Sunni Triangle, with
the number of attacks skyrocketing to 75 per day. Falluja has removed
any doubt from the minds of young Iraqi men that a nonviolent settlement
is possible. The flattening of a city of 250,000 confirms, in stark
terms, that the war will be decided by force of arms. Falluja has
removed whatever "gray area" there may have been  before. 


The numbers of insurgents are steadily on the rise since the siege. The
strength of the current rebellion was estimated last week by Iraq's
Intelligence Chief, General Mohammed Shahwani. Shahwani told a Saudi
newspaper that the "US was facing 40,000 hard-core fighters" and a
support group of as "many as 150,000 to 200,000". 


Predictably, the story was buried in the western press, but the
implications are clear. The Pentagon has been intentionally misleading
the American people about the size and strength of the insurgency.
(previous estimates were between 5,000 to 20,000) These new figures,
which are now supported by many independent defense analysts, point to
an insurgency which is numerically larger than the occupation and fully
prepared to fight a long and gory guerilla war. This brings us back to
James Dobbins observation "The beginning of wisdom is to realize that
the United States can't win." 

Indeed. 

Falluja's failure means that the prospect of destroying the rest of
Iraq's cities is more remote. Rather, success will depend on increasing
the number of US troops and developing a long term strategy for
"incrementally" establishing security. The only other option is to
deflect attention from the occupation forces by inciting widespread
instability. A civil war may serve the short term interests of the
administration, but it could also provoke region-wide turmoil. It's a
risk that no sane person would consider. 


The determination to carry out the Jan 30 elections further proves that
the administration has not veered from the reckless and delusional
strategies that have thrust the mission to the brink of disaster. 


Months ago, Baghdad correspondent, Andrew Cockburn warned that the
United States was "in danger of losing the war" in Iraq. Since then the
security situation has steadily worsened and vast swaths of the country
have come under rebel control. Every promotional device the
administration has used (the forming of the Coalition Provisional
Authority; the transfer of sovereignty and, now, the elections) has
backfired; bringing on larger attacks and stiffer resistance. Rumsfeld's
"high-tech" warfare has degenerated into death squads and torture
chambers; a pitiable return to medieval combat. The civilian leadership,
drunk with hubris and greed, never noticed the wave of insurgency
looming in the distance. Now, they're facing daily trauma and death
without a clear plan for success. The Iraq mission is like a 21st
century Striker-vehicle buried up to its axles and lolling in the
dessert sand. as the Jan 30 deadline approaches, there's little sign
that things will improve.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm