I wanted to follow up with some of my comments regarding Iran and also to give everyone lots of links to follow and research on your own.
Back in 2003, I started predicting that we would go to war with Iraq. Sadly, I was correct. Sadder still is my current prediction - we are going to attack Iran.
Please take the time to read Seymour Hersh's article "The Iran Plans" from April 2006. Pay special attention to page 2 and the last 6 paragraphs on page 7. The bottom line is this - we're going to attack Iran. We probably won't try to invade or occupy, but we will bomb Iran. Knowing this will help you understand the politics driving the ongoing war in Iraq.
Here's how it's going to play out:
1) We are going to send 30,000 - 40,000 troops into eastern Baghdad. Why there? Muqtada al-Sadr is loosely in control of a large militia there.
2) al-Sadr's militia will attack our troops.
2a) (We'll forget who the enemy is or was before.)
3) Our administration will claim that al-Sadr and his militia are funded by Iran
4) Therefore, Iran is engaging in state-sponsored terrorism AND that terrorism is a direct threat to us. This will be the justification for our attacks.
5) We will attack Iran with aircraft carrier task force and special forces.
"Naturally the common people don't want war; .... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. " -Hermann Göring
For a humerous educational 'lecture' on the history of the west's interests in the Middle East, check out Robert Newman's History of Oil (Google video - 45 minutes). The video is embedded in my January posting.
Muqtada la-Sadr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr
As of early 2004, he was the de facto ruler of the Sadr City section of Baghdad and commanded the loyalty of the Mahdi Army, an Iranian-backed insurgent force making a bid for power in Iraq.
On October 19, 2006, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army seized control of Amarah in the south of Iraq. George W. Bush was stated to have seen a possible parallel between the lead-up to the capture of Amarah and the 1968 Tet Offensive, which was seen to lead to the United States' withdrawal from the Vietnam War. The White House later said the President was not suggesting a similar turning point had been reached, rather that al-Sadr was trying to influence US elections.
On October 24th, the US Army locked down Sadr City while searching for a kidnapped US soldier. During the lock down, deaths dropped by 50%. When Prime Minister al-Maliki demanded the end of the blockade, the muder rate returned to previous levels.
On February 13, 2007, several sources in the Bush administration claimed that Muqtada al-Sadr had fled to Iran in anticipation of the coming security crackdown. On March 30, it was reported that Sadr, through clerics speaking on his behalf, "delivered a searing speech ... condemning the American presence in Iraq ... [and] call[ing] for an anti-occupation mass protest on April 9...." This call to protest was significant in that, since the beginning of the American "troop surge" (which began on February 14, 2007), Sadr had ordered his "militia to lie low during the new Baghdad security plan so as not to provoke a direct confrontation with the Americans."
Bush's proposed increase was 21,000 US troops, 4000 of which would be Marine Corps focused on the Anbar province while the others would be embedded into Iraqi units to provide security to Baghdad.
12,000 more Guard troops may be going to Iraq
Coming on the heels of a controversial “surge” of 21,000 U.S. troops that has stretched the Army thin, the Defense Department is preparing to send an additional 12,000 National Guard combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment