Reply #5: No no no! The neoconservatives want Iraq split, and so [View All]

[Minstrel Boy]

they're fanning the flames of civil war in order to manufature a crisis to which they can impose the solution.

I posted this yesterday in another thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1327585):

The neocons are doing much more than merely hoping for civil war.

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 take credit nor 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