Neocon shows again that the Iraqi "Civil War" was always the Pentagon plan...

[JackRiddler]

"Ethnic cleansing works." - Ralph Peters

THIS MAP WAS DRAWN UP TO ACCOMPANY AN ARTICLE IN ARMED FORCES JOURNAL LAST SUMMER BY RALPH PETERS (LEADING NEOCON THEORIST):


Original article:
http://live.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters

QUOTES:

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

(MEANING: WHICH IS WHY SELF-INTERESTED EUROPEAN-AMERICANS SHOULD NOW RE-DRAW THE MAP)

While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats. (...)

Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

(HOW DO BORDERS GET RE-DRAWN IN PRACTICE? DUH...)

(...) As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

ON EDIT: My favorite of the Peter Countries is the generic "Arab Shia State" that happens to incorporate all of the richest oil areas of both Iraq and Iran, and wraps around most of the Gulf Coast. Do I see an important future ally to the American interest in stability and democracy, blah blah? This Peters -- who I think may qualify under international law as a planner of war crimes and genocide just on the basis of proposing this map as a good future -- he can't even come up with a name for it! That's how much he cares.

---

The "Clean Break" document prepared by Perle and Co. in 1996. The PNAC plan for the Middle East, involving all of the top architects of the later Iraq invasion. Now Ralph Peters with the above map. They do not keep their idea secret: the ME should be broken up into new, smaller, more manageable states who are at war with each other. The US will attempt to manage this checkerboard, and make sure the units who control the most oil are peaceful and "friendly."

Never mind that this is hubris and it's not going to work. The heart of the matter is that this was always the plan.

The Iraqi "civil war" is the intended result of US policy in Iraq. It is what Cheney and Rumsfeld expected (barring the greeted-with-flowers scenario, which they understood was bullshit to sucker Americans).

The invasion,
the killing of untold thousands by bombing from the air,
the poisoning of the country with Depleted Uranium,
the destruction of the energy and water infrastructure and cultural treasures,
the torture of civilians and its media reception in Iraq, an outrageous affront to their identity and dignity,
the British and presumably American false-flag attacks,
the lies about foreign insurgents and the propaganda construct "Zarqawi",
the creation of death-squads in an Interior Ministry known to be infiltrated by Shi'a militias,
the arming of different factions by Saudi and Iranian backers...

all of this was expected, encouraged, and welcomed by the real US policy.

The idea was always to create a situation in which the Iraqi people kill each other, and then to pretend that "golly gee, we were incompetent and accidentally started a civil war among these crazy ethnic groups!"

[ThoughtCriminal]

1. Another map that is being re-drawn...

Dumbfukistan.

Thankfully it has been getting smaller every month.

[alfredo]

2. Iraq is no more than a Neo Con Petri dish. They are trying to put their

theories into practice to see if they will work.

[shance]

3. Looking at the map of course explains it all. Afghanistan, IRAN, Iraq.

Of course the Neocons want to invade Iran.

Look where it is.

[magellan]

4. Anyone notice Israel? I'm shocked

They actually show Israel losing territory by withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders. That gets tentative applause from me (tentative because it's a good thing and these bastards never do anything good)...but the rest is a nightmare. Have they told Turkey to make room for a Free Kurdistan yet? And Iran about Free Baluchistan? And Saudi Arabia about losing Mecca to an "Islamic Sacred State"?

[The Stranger]

5. I have said it for years -- this was a premediated plan, a crime on a scale never before imagined.

Justice must be done, but how? When?

[Boogie]

6. A Neocon caliphate that stretches from Europe to the Far East.

[JackRiddler]

7. Analyses by Chris Floyd and Nafeez Ahmed among others, here

http://www.oilempire.us/new-map.html

TOM HAYDEN:

January 31, 2007 - Biden's Presidential campaign promotes partition

Senator Biden (D-Delaware) announced he is joining the crowded field of candidates for Emperor. While few are likely to be interested in his campaign, one part of his platform is a dangerous meme likely to spread and become the "alternative" view of what to do about Iraq. Biden's advocacy for breaking Iraq into three entities is probably the Bush regime's goal from the start of the conflict, since smaller enclaves would make the oil easier to control. See the neo-con's new Middle East map for details. (...)

FLOYD:

"The article could perhaps be dismissed as the fantasy of a would-be world-shaker – but it has already provoked a diplomatic firestorm from the plan's intended targets, requiring a State Department intervention to dampen the flames."

"Ralph Peters – "Terror War" analyst, hack novelist, ex-military intelligence officer – was the cartographer of creative destruction in the Journal article. Peters, a long-time member of the "close your hearts to pity" school of warhawking commentary, forever urging more strenuous application of hot iron on the recalcitrant tribes that beset us, has recently joined with the bold visionaries at the Project for a New American Century crowd. That's the group made up of Bush Faction heavy hitters – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Brother Jeb and others – who in September 2000 laid out the blueprint that George W. followed faithfully once he acquired the presidency."

".... Late last month, the U.S. State Department was forced to issue a disavowal of the article, as Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reports. The article was the work of a private citizen and didn't reflect official government policy, said State mouthpiece Sean McCormack, who couldn't resist adding that, yes, the U.S. was committed to sweeping change in the arc of crisis – but only because "this call comes from the Middle East itself." In other words, they're asking for it."

(ANYWAY, ALL TRUE NEOCON WARHEADS KNOW THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS THE ENEMY)

[Morgana LaFey]

12. Nafeez Ahmed knows his stuff

Well, so does Chris Floyd.

But here's the book Ahmed wrote: http://www.amazon.com/War-Truth-Disinformation-Anatomy-Terrorism/dp/1566565960/sr=1-1/qid=1172170132/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-7769261-0103624?ie=UTF8&s=books


It's a stunner. I couldn't get past about page 74 -- just because it was so overwhelming to see the awful, horrible truth about 9-11 laid out all in one place like that, so perfectly and thoroughly documented. NOT that I don't know the truth (or enough of it), just that it was very overwhelming to see it in one place, in black and white. But that was a while back. I should try it again. For anyone who's not got a good book on 9-11, I recommend this one heartily. PNAC figures very prominently in those first pages, and so does Zbigniew Brzezenski, whom I know some people have lionized lately.

[unblock]

8. i think you give them too much credit. the long-term visions are all fictions.

i think the goals were:
(a) disrupt a competing oil supplier to drive up the price so domestic producers can make a ton of money
(b) sell lots of military toys so defense contractors can make a ton of money

secondary goals were:
(c) possibly seize ownership (full or partial) in a competitors' oil fields.
(d) possibly establish bases / flex military power in the middle east.


remember, the right wing doesn't theorize about what is right and then develop action plans to implement them. that's what the left does. the right wing instead decides first what they WANT to do and then the come up with a "theory" to justify it.

so the goal was to go to war, the question was how to justify it, so they come up with these theories about how better the middle east would be if only x, y, and z. and oh, so conveniently, a u.s. invasion would set it all right.


the civil war may be foreseen or not, planned or not, whatever; but that's beside the point. THEY DIDN'T CARE, because objectives (a) and (b) worked brilliantly. and that's what they did care about.

[JackRiddler]

9. I stand by this statement

Never mind that this is hubris and it's not going to work. The heart of the matter is that this was always the plan.

What Peters shows is thin on the philosophical justification. It is a strategy, i.e. "what they want."

You say: "the right wing instead decides first what they WANT to do and then the come up with a 'theory' to justify it."

I say: Sure. And what they -- not the right-wing per se but the neocons and Bush mob -- WANTED may or may not be related to your speculation on limited motives with regard to oil profiteering.

I think what they WANT was spelled out a decade ago in their own documents like "Clean Break" and the PNAC papers, and manifest in all of their actions since: An Iraqi civil war. Balkanization of the Middle East. Military control of world resources. Permanent state of war. Global dominance of US by military means. Space war. New generation of mini-nukes that we can finally use. Garrison mentality in US, constant war-on-terror drumbeat culture. A little bit of Rome, a little bit of Nazi Germany, a little bit of contemporary Israel (the "security" mentality).

[unblock]

10. i agree on the end results

i agree that they want the u.s. controlling things throughout the middle east, mostly or entirely through direct military control.

my point is that i think they generally DIDN'T CARE about where and how civil wars, regional wars, whatever, would happen. i think it was always just let's get in there using iraq as a pretense. then once we're there we can then look around for another pretense to further our power projection.

the exact borders, the time frames, etc. is all secondary to them.


and my pointing out the domestic oil profits wasn't meant to completely limit things to short-term profit. the entire point of the power projection in the middle east is so that they can keep exercising control over their competitors' supply. again, with the possibility of seizing ownership as well.

[JackRiddler]

14. I think we agree...

You say:

the exact borders, the time frames, etc. is all secondary to them.

Yup. Project power, make chaos, then see what you can shake out of it in terms of control and profit.

The other factor - the eternal factor, so to speak - is the military-industrial complex. Enriching it, justifying it, feeding it new enemies, keeping it politically dominant at home.

[Morgana LaFey]

11. Some links I've saved

I'm not making any claims -- I've just saved these under the topic, "CIVIL WAR -- U.S. FOMENTED?"


13:36 12/2/2006
Vehicles Used In Iraq Car Bombings Were Stolen In The US
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2840464

Iraq's "catastrophic success" is intentional (Minstrel Boy)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x92532

Two British soldiers dressed as Arabs arrested over killing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4819548

US in secret gun deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2278449#2278731

One of the "insurgent" groups in Iraq publishes a monthly magazine. WTF?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x696722

Dahr Jamail...."Who Benefits?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x193106#193113

FAUX News: All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x510889

Many Iraqis Believe "Suicide" Bombings Done By US To Start Civil War (several good links)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5554171#5554406

[JackRiddler]

17. good collection!

Minstrel Boy is of course the incomparable rigorousintuition of

http://rigint.blogspot.com

[Alcibiades]

13. Note how Kuwait

Loses no territory. We can redraw the borders of the entire middle east, but Kuwait is sacrosanct, because we fought a war to guarantee its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

This is so not happening. If what happens to the Kurdish areas of Turkey is unrealistic, what happens to Saudi Arabia is quadruple, double-plus not possible. Yes, the Saudis will be OK with this, sure. I'm surprised we don't face an oil embargo simply because this jerkweed suggested it.

[JackRiddler]

15. Yeah, it's the fiction within the fiction

The official US allies and enclaves of convenience - Qatar, Kuwait, Israel, UAE - remain magically unaltered by this map and the 100 years of war it implies. Kuwait is sacrosanct because there's no dispute that "we" own it, right?

[EVDebs]

16. "Israel pre 1967 borders" ... now that's not gonna happen nt

[JackRiddler]

24. It's just the usual map borders

Peters is avoiding the Israel/Palestine question altogether, note he shows the standard map borders (which are the pre-1967) and labels the West Bank as "status to be determined." Just another indicator of the imperialist mindset.

The brown-skinned, Muslim, inferior peoples are the ones who need a big-dicked American male to draw their borders for them. Peters obviously has trouble keeping track of all these damn countries, which is why he can't even come up with names for a couple of the new ones he proposes. ("Arab Shi'a State" is the total giveaway, since that's actually United Oily-stan, conveniently uniting the oiliest areas of Iraq, Saudi and Iran and the strategically vital Gulf coast into a single "republic" to occupy with lots of US bases, I guess - maybe we can even find some Christian settlers to send in?)

So Arabs and Muslims don't matter. But the Israelis are considered a superior people and are still granted legitimate agency, hence the "to be determined." That are allowed to decide, because they're fully human (=American=most of the West, presumably, except certain European surrender monkeys).

[PassionateAttachment]

18. Joe Wilson's Sept 14, 2003 OpEd

The administration short-circuited the discussion of whether war was necessary because some of its most powerful members felt it was the best option—ostensibly because they had deluded themselves into believing that they could easily impose flowering democracies on the region.

A more cynical reading of the agenda of certain Bush advisers could conclude that the Balkanization of Iraq was always an acceptable outcome, because Israel would then find itself surrounded by small Arab countries worried about each other instead of forming a solid block against Israel. After all, Iraq was an artificial country that had always had a troublesome history.

http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/honesty.html



Joe Wilson - June 14, 2003

"The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90's which was called, "A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm." And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem."

19:46: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/28-lecture-wilson-32.mp3

"On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy."

13:33: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/29-lecture-qa-32.mp3



Feb 28 03 http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_wilson.html

MOYERS: So this is not just about weapons of mass destruction.

WILSON: Oh, no, I think it's far more about re-growing the political map of the Middle East.

MOYERS: What does that mean?

WILSON: Well, that basically means trying to install regimes in the Middle East that are far more friendly to the United States — there are those in the administration that call them democracies. Somehow it's hard for me to imagine that a democratic system will emerge out of the ashes of Iraq in the near term. And when and if it does, it's hard for me to believe that it will be more pro-American and more pro-Israeli than what you've got now.

MOYERS: Tell me what you think about the arguments of one of those men, Richard Perle, who is perhaps the most influential advocate in the President's and the administration's ear arguing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. What do you think about his argument?

WILSON: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was produced in the mid-'90s for the Likud Israeli government called "a clean break, a new strategy for the realm." And it makes the argument that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's been since expanded to include Iran.

MOYERS: So this was drawn up during the '90s...

[JackRiddler]

20. Thanks for these excellent finds from Joe Wilson on the "Clean Break" memo

He was getting at the core of the doctrine underlying the invasion of Iraq - breaking up the Middle East into (yet more) eternally warring and pliable pieces - and it sure shows why it was important to shut him up. Because he was talking about the history, and it's very much on the public record and it's extremely incriminating. First the Perle/Netanyahu group came up with this map, then the neocon intellectuals joined up with the Bush mob in the form of PNAC.* All this is lost in the usual, narrow view of the Plame case and Libby trial.

And welcome to DU, passionateattachment!

Give us a few "kicks" and let us know some more of what you think, governor...



(To continue that: Then their accession to power was facilitated by every dirty means, right up to stealing an election and subverting the Supreme Court in Dec. 2001. Then they got the "enabling event" of 9/11 exactly at the time they were ready to launch this global war. Then they delivered any and every possible lie in justifying it. Suddenly, Joe Wilson is pissing on the party. He's not really such a threat, except that they are absolutists and can't tolerate any dissent from this highest of all missions.)

[donkeyotay]

22. Thanks for these Wilson links. I think this is so important

"On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy."

The one thing the American people deserve out of the price we've paid here is to have organizations like AIPAC treated as foreign agents. Our support for Israel must be conditional, because under the current system that is so loyal to Israel that we do not even discuss it, we are beholden to right wing policies that are unacceptable. The right wing of Israel currently has more representation in Washington than the left wing of the US. This seems unacceptable to me. To say that this must change is NOT to say that we abandon Israel or anything like that. It's just to admit that our interests and their interests are not identical. We have the same blind support pre-Clean Break and post-Clean Break, a change from "land for peace" to the policies that we see being inacted, the ones that are costing us so dearly.

Our government exists for the benefit of the US citizens. The way Washington is functioning right now, you'd think someone tore up the bill of rights and replaced it with an article saying we exist only to serve - not Israel, but the Likud. There's still a liberal Israel, and they are not being served by this anymore than liberal America is.

It's so frustrating that this topic is so taboo.

[Emit]

19. Peters also advocates a "Kill, Don’t Capture" policy

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

http://theonerepublic.com/archives/Columns/Peters/20060711PetersKill.html

[JackRiddler]

21. Sad truth is...

He could argue this is what was happening all along in conflicts like Vietnam... kill'em all, count'em up, claim their death brought you closer to victory.

Naturally the US military (and its smart bombs) have magic goggles that instantly allow the wearer to distinguish violent Islamist extremist terrorists from insurgents from tribal militias from poor saps just standing around in the wrong spot. A force where 99 percent don't speak even a smidgen of the local language...

[Disturbed]

23. Part of Pearle's Plan was to overthrow the Saudi Royals.

That part probably didn't go over real well to the Bush Crime Family.

[Emit]

25. This info relates to a thread I started a while back on Regime Change in Iran

It is a collection of info/events, many involving key neoconservatives and their respective groups, who have direct interest and involvement in regime change in Iran. This latest post on that thread:

Controversial AEI Meeting Mobilizes Iranian Activists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x233209#274439

caused quite a stir among some dissident groups, as there were concerns over whether these dissident groups that the likes of AEI, Michael Ledeen and the US Govt are supporting are interested in separatist movements (likely to lead to the type of map you posted in your OP) as opposed to a united Iran. All groups I've been reading about are interested in regime change in Iran -- including various dissident groups which have a personal interest in the future of their homeland. How to achieve regime change is a frequent topic of discussion among these groups members. My interest has been what AEI and other neoconservative groups have in mind.

[JackRiddler]

26. Exploitation of groups whose cause is genuine...

This is an example of divide and conquer, the oldest imperial strategy. Here's AEI or Heritage raising the flag for women in Afghanistan and Somalia, for Kurds in Turkey, exploited immigrant Turks in Europe, Chinese workers, minorities in Russia, even in the case of Heritage working to expose the false-flag attacks of the FSB (former KGB) on its own Russian people to railroad them into accepting tyranny and war. It's always got the same upshot: America has the right and duty to settle the score on behalf of the oppressed group, including by military means, since it's so pure and true, the local hegemony is backward and evil, America is good. And these groups are picked up or discarded at convenience. How many times have the Kurds been pumped up and then screwed?

[Emit]

28. Heh.

And Ledeen even mentioned something about the Kurds getting screwed, repeatedly, in this AEI conference from '05 that I posted about on this other thread -- he didn't get any laughs, though. Yuppers. Yup. Let's hope this controversy that the AEI conference stirred up is indicative of various Iranian dissident groups seeing that they are being used. My heart aches for the fact that they might be dealing with devils in order to have their hopes for their homeland come to fruition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=277535&mesg_id=281656

[JackRiddler]

27. & another kick