US Strategy in Iraq: Divide and Rule

[bemildred]

Consider in relation to the problems in NE Syria.
The excerpt is from the bottom, after a good deal of historical
background.

* First, undermine the US effort to bring stability to Iraq by disrupting security and the smooth running of
business. * Second, attack the infrastructure by disrupting electricity, oil pipelines and refineries, supply
routes, and communication networks. * Third, attack those who are collaborating or aiding the US, such as
the international forces in Iraq, the so-called Iraqi police force, and Iraqis working for the occupation in
civilian jobs. * Four, attack the US forces themselves on a daily basis, everywhere, and at all times.

The success of the resistance has prompted the US to rely heavily on its greatest skill -- weakening
countries by causing divisions within them.

It is not a mistake that suddenly central Iraq is being called "the Sunni triangle." It may be true that Sunnis
are carrying out most of the resistance, but this does not mean that all Sunnis are in agreement with, or
support, the resistance. Many Sunnis are in fact collaborating with US occupation forces.

The US is trying to blame violent military actions on the Sunnis in order to isolate them as an ethnic group.
For instance, there have been numerous attacks on Shi'ite holy places and leaders. One attack took place on
March 2 in Baghdad and Karbala during Ashura, an important Shi'ite holiday, that claimed the lives of two
hundred people, and injured hundreds more. Because of US manipulation, the world assumes the Sunnis are
to blame. With the liar's talent for concealing his strategy by simply proclaiming it, Paul Bremer, the U.S.
master in Iraq, said the attacks were committed "to provoke sectarian violence among Muslims," as if this
very thing was not exactly the intention of the US.

AxisOfLogic

[teryang]

1. Interesting analysis

Western tactics are by their nature mechanical. Here we have geometry and division. Not suprising to see an Arab writer picking up on these machinations.

The behavior of Sistani is characteristic of a Shia religious leader as he is somewhat loathe in his religious role as moral leader of the majority community to immerse himself in the bloodshed to which more soldierly types (particularly among the Sunnis and Kurds) more readily avail themselves. This may be a weak point in divide and conquer strategies. As the heir to wisdom and moral authority in his community, perhaps he understands the virtues of patience, as American presence by historical standards will be very short lived. He would be wise to see to it that his community is well organized and well armed, if only for self defense.

Shia in Iraq are accustomed to Sunni dominance in secular affairs for historical reasons. Sunni soldier types who refuse to give up their pride and their prior monopoly of force defy the occupation and invasion by the expression of violence. Soldier types exist among Shia as well but they more likely to be sectarian in outlook. They have taken heavy losses since 1990 and those who have survived are circumspect in their actions and likely to follow religious direction. Among those who are secularized, religious differences as not as significant as we assume them to be. Shia if not ideologues or zealots, wait for events to sort themselves out and for Americans and other foreignors to leave.

The soldiers who set bombs remotely and the fanatics who blow themselves up are from different communities and mindsets and are a reality to be lived with. I share the writers suspicions about the identity of bombmakers in some cases particularly where mosques are attacked. Some bombings may be sponsored by enemy intelligence agencies. Iraq and Iran sponsored bombings in Israel and the terroritories, why wouldn't they return the favor given the opportunity? Our agencies should be on the long list to be suspected in such affairs. The well fed Arabs who administer summary justice in the streets after terrorist incidents and other crimes are a wild card, that I am unable to categorize. Are they just murderers or the emergence of a new secret police? Based on appearances alone, I would guess they are Chalabi thugs, the same who pulled down Saddam's statue in Bhagdad.

As long as the Americans cannot bring order, they cannot rule nor can they establish a government. The chaos going on now is characteristic of failed policy and failed government. Is it divide and conquer by design or just a policy that was designed to destroy an emerging power? Whatever it was, we've created a hell on earth. Are the Iraqis better off than they were a year ago? Don't make me laugh.

[burythehatchet]

2. The United States is a one trick pony

this has been the strategy throughout our history.

From the native americans to Chavez' Venezuela. Sell the arms, help commit atrocities, plant the seeds on insurrection, divide and conquer, sell more arms.

[bemildred]

3. Thank you both for your comments.

It clarified a point that had been confusing me.
From the point of view of the occupying power, it is
an "improvement" if either of two things occurs:

1.) They manage to impose order and govern by proxy.
This sends all right messages, allows all the desired
propaganda points to be made, and stops the various forms
of haemorrhage now occurring.

2.) The place descends into chaos and ethnic civil war,
which allows them to disengage somewhat, claim the Iraqis
are not able to self-govern yet, gets them off the hook
for their own violence, and so on.

In both cases, the "threat" of a strong, unified, and
independent Iraq is removed. It's straight out of Machievelli,
really, I forget the chapter.

The one thing that fails for the occupying power is the
indefinite continuance of the present situation, which will
eventually force them to leave.

It appears, although I am waiting for further evidence, that
we have given up on number one and are working on number two,
using the Kurds as a wedge.

Of course once you adopt this point of view, it illuminates a
lot of things elsewhere in the ME and the third World in general.
For example, the last thing the USA wants in Iran is a democratic
transition.