Are the neocons HOPING for civil war in Iraq?

[robertpaulsen]

The media is filled with U.S. military and politicians warning of the potential for civil war in Iraq. Whenever I read columns from Robert Fisk or any other independent voice who knows what's going on there, it seems that threat is not the great concern between Sunnis and Shiites that the media here would have us believe.

It seems to me the neocons are floating this trial balloon so the sheeple will be prepared for its eventuality. Civil war would lead to an increase in U.S. troops and cement our presence there. The greater the chaos, the greater our involvement. Perhaps this is the reason the transfer of authority date of June 30 is set in stone, despite the UN's better advice. It's CYA and instigating discord at the same time. "We tried to grant them independence as soon as possible, like they asked for, but they weren't ready!"

The BFEE could either use it as an election issue to show Kerry as wrong trying to use the UN for a situation they aren't capable of handling, or if the election is in the bag, use it next year to rev up the draft. Either way, it's a win-win situation for them, a lose-lose situation for us.

[arcane1]

1. the more chaos and disorder in Iraq, the better for them

gives them more examples of why wee need to "stay the course" not "cut & run" and all their other little catch-phrases

a stable, TRUE democracy in Iraq would spoil their plans

[stinkeefresh]

4. especially since a true democracy

would quickly result in a theocracy. Which, interestingly enough, is Bin Laden's #1 goal- theocratization of secular Arab states.

[pinto]

2. good argument, but I think the neocons truly believed the cakewalk

victory would be followed by a patsy, acquiescent Shia led regime, an oblivious population...and, as you note, a permanent US military presence at the regime's "request". From there, expansion into the "greater Middle East"...you know their drift. And they are drifting.....

What is truly frightening is the neocons' complete disregard for a reality check.

[ithacan]

5. agreed.

they are very out of touch with reality, totally driven by a blind ideological faith

[bobthedrummer]

9. I also think the neo-cons expected what Chalabi's lies promised-

flowers, sweetness and light, gratitude and rejoicing, etc.

[pinto]

16. yeah, theory meet Chalabi... Chalabi, theory. Consensus? Done. War.

Pathetic way to run a foriegn policy.

[helenbee]

3. "Are the neocons HOPING for civil war in Iraq?"

Yep! Ever hear of Stockholm Syndrom? BFEE is actively using fear to keep us in check. Even our Congress has got it. Color coded fear, anyone?

The reason the BFEE isn't scared too is they know what they are doing.
Fear, doubts, and uncertainty about the future are Bush's aces. He plays them when it looks like we're not paying attention. The more we question BFEE competence, the more they crank up the fear.

[West Coast Democrat]

15. Increased fear of Terrorism may play into their hands

but I don't see how increased violence in Iraq "cranks up the fear" among Americans who are split 50-50 on the whole thing.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. Absolutely! The neocons are pumping civil war.

And I believe they're doing much more than merely hoping.

Because having conquered Iraq, they want an excuse to divide it, so it will never again be an independent economic and military power. That's good to remember, when the bombs blow up mosques and pilgrims, and neither Sunnis nor Shiites appear keen to fan the sectarian flames. And think of the constitution the US has tried to impose, institutionalizing sectarian division. Iraqis do not want this!

The neoconservatives WANT Iraq to dissolve into chaos, so it can be carved into tribal vassal states. It's also a strategic goal of the Israeli right. Read Israeli journalist Oded Yinon, writing in 1982:

"The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target.... Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria.... Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."
http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_xymphora_archive.html#1078...

What looks to us like a disaster is, to the neo-conservative ideologue, a transitional stage to the redrawing of the map of the Middle East.

So when the bombs explode, seemingly without reason, be assured: there's one huge, bloody reason.

Robert Fisk, March 3: "All This Talk Of Civil War, And Now This.... Coincidence?"

Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq.

Al-Qa'ida has never uttered a threat against Shias - even though al-Qa'ida is a Sunni-only organisation. Yet for weeks, the American occupation authorities have been warning us about civil war, have even produced a letter said to have been written by an al-Qa'ida operative, advocating a Sunni-Shia conflict. Normally sane journalists have enthusiastically taken up this theme. Civil war.

...

I think of the French OAS in Algeria in 1962, setting off bombs among France's Muslim Algerian community. I recall the desperate efforts of the French authorities to set Algerian Muslim against Algerian Muslim which led to half a million dead souls.

...

We are entering a dark and sinister period of Iraqi history. But an occupation authority which should regard civil war as the last prospect it ever wants to contemplate, keeps shouting "civil war" in our ears and I worry about that. Especially when the bombs make it real.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5805.htm

[robertpaulsen]

10. Thanks for the links!

That was the Robert Fisk column I was referring to. Great blog, I was wondering what date the link for the rest of the Oded Yinon article is. The part you quoted sounds exactly like PNAC textbook planning for dividing and conquering the Middle East.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

7. That's a dream situation for Faux

Their "terror ratings" will go thru the roof!

[Jim Sagle]

8. Actually they want one here at home. Listen to Mike Savage shill for

domestic strife.

[leftofthedial]

11. civil war is inevitable there

actual eruption of widespread continuing violence would harm the neocon agenda.

[MSgt213]

12. Soon people will begin to understand that military power and the use of

force is limited. Soon and I hope it's soon enough to prevent too many more of our young men and women from getting killed over there people will understand that having great diplomats is just as important as having great generals.

Don't get me wrong, you need great generals to deliver military force when it is necessary. That force though has to be delivered deliberately and with finality. The enemy has to know when you come in it's over. There will be no army left to drift home on their own. There will be no weapons left laying around in piles waiting to be used against you. The populace must know that you will not tolerate the harboring of your enemies. I know it may sound harsh, but I think it would save lives instead of taking them the way they are being taken now both american and iraqi.

Before any of the above comes to pass the diplomats have had to have a chance to do their job. If they can't convince a foe to lay down their arms then it's the diplomat's job to turn all his country's friends and allies against the foe. To make the case that they, their friends and allies can give them no comfort or quarter. If necessary after the general's job is done then the diplomats job continues convincing the populace they are much better off then they were.

Again before any of the above can happen though you must have strong leadership. Leadership that knows that the option of military force is always there, but should be used only as a last resort. He does'nt accept failure from his diplomats. He sees their failure as his failure. He knows if the use of force comes to past he will be sending other people's sons and daughters to die. He knows he will do it if he must because it's his responsibility, but he will never rest until he has done everything in is power to avoid it. Soon maybe we will have a President like that.

[Mari333]

13. remember. the draft is coming

www.bushdraft.com
maybe that will wake people up.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. I am beginning to think so, yes.