Who is to blame for the current state of chaos in Iraq? An oversimplified and misguided, if not dishonest course of action would be to blame Iraqis for being the radical, death-cult worshiping fanatics they are and ignore America’s foreign policy decision-making, which led to the current situation. In turn, one could place Iraq on a travel ban list of nations that doesn’t include any of the countries that created and support al-Qaeda (and then nonsensically remove them from your revised list some weeks later).
Of course, a more honest and fruitful venture would be to examine the events that led to the current situation engulfing Iraq. As American airstrikes continue to massacre the Iraqi civilian population by the hundreds, we owe it to the Iraqi people to get to the bottom of this story. From there, we could ostensibly create a future path that might bring peace to the war-torn nation as opposed to blindly continuing the same policies Iraq has been victim to for decades.
In the early 1900s, the British drew up artificial boundaries for Iraq and forced diverse groups in a sectarian society to identify themselves under one nation. The tactic was part of a wider divide and conquer strategy the British employed throughout the region. According to the New York Times, the CIA actively supported Saddam Hussein’s initial rise to power in the 1960s by staging a coup in a bid to undermine the “threat” of Abdel Karim Kassem, who had grown too assertive for Washington’s liking.
U.S support for Hussein continued for decades as the U.S. heavily backed Iraq’s war of aggression against neighboring Iran, even though the U.S. knew he was using chemical weapons. The U.S. also secretly armed the Iranians at the same time to maximize the death toll (the war cost well over one million Iraqi and Iranian lives). The U.S. was even trying to convince Hussein to attack the Assad regime in Syria even though they knew Hussein was, at the time, “fighting for his life” in the Iran-Iraq war.
Following this brutal war, the U.S. duped Hussein into thinking they had given him the green light to invade Kuwait. As soon as Hussein invaded Kuwait, the U.S. almost immediately turned its back on him and began a P.R. campaign that would eventually lead to an invasion on Iraqi soil. In 1994, when Dick Cheney was asked if U.S. forces should have gone all the way to Baghdad. He responded with a resolute “no,” before adding further:
… if we’d gone to Baghdad, we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a US occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you’ve got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
Let that sink in for a moment: The man who unleashed chaos in Iraq in 2003 knew exactly why it would be dangerous to do so a decade prior. Following the first U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. slapped economic sanctions on Iraq that reportedly killed over 500,000 Iraqi children. The U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest, stating:
Four thousand to five thousand children are dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions because of the breakdown of water and sanitation, inadequate diet and the bad internal health situation.
As if Iraq hadn’t suffered enough, the U.S. decided to invade again in 2003, only this time, they ousted Saddam Hussein and his entire government, capitalizing on American fears after 9/11 to attack a country that had nothing to do with the terror attacks.
It is worth noting that the Project for the New American Century, an organization of which Cheney was also a member, released a document in 2001 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.” This document called for massive increases in U.S. military spending and a much more aggressive foreign policy agenda in order to expand America’s dominance worldwide. Unsurprisingly, Iraq is featured heavily in this document.
In March 2003, the U.S. began its “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign “on a scale that indicate[d] to Iraqis” that Saddam and his leadership were finished, according to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as reported by CNN.
Shortly after, Paul Bremer, leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority and U.S. Presidential Envoy and Administrator in Iraq, fired close to 400,000 servicemen simply because they were part of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist party. This was perhaps the single largest blunder of the 2003 invasion (if it is possible to pinpoint one in particular) because this directly led to the rise of ISIS. In May 2015, Time Magazine ran an article entitled “How Disbanding the Iraqi Army Fueled ISIS.” This is hardly a conspiracy theory.
As is quite clear, ISIS and the various other terrorist groups that were able to establish a foothold in Iraq following the U.S. invasion have been wreaking havoc and mayhem across the country. As Ben Swann, an investigative journalist and outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy, stated quite astutely:
Before the 2003 U.S. invasion, do you know how many suicide attacks there were in Iraq? None. In the country’s history there had never been one. But since the 2003 invasion, there have been 1,892.
Donald J. Trump is the fifth straight president in succession to bomb Iraq. Ask yourself: as an American, or any other Westerner for that matter, what has Iraq as a nation, or any Iraqi ever, done to you? What has Iraq done to the world to deserve this treatment? And what is the connection between relentlessly bombing a country for decades, and crippling its economy – and its liberation? Can anyone explain at what stage, since the early 1900s, Iraq has been liberated by anyone?
Trump supporters and his media mouthpieces can spout anti-Islamic rhetoric as much as they like, but it is a truly intellectually dishonest position to focus solely on the region’s religion and not on the actual events that led to the chaos we are seeing unfolding right now. There are many majority-Muslim countries that are actually tourism hotspots, so surely there is something in particular about Iraq’s situation that makes it such a hotbed of violence and terrorism.
And it is as important now as ever to examine these underlying events and causes considering the U.S. air campaign in Iraq is radically intensifying.
Two words sum up America’s actions in Iraq: WAR CRIMES.
But you talk to the sheeple and it is always the DINO’s fault. When the first guld war went down all I heard was that we have never gone to war under a RINO admin.
Because the DINOs and RINOs are one and the same…. just using different rhetoric.
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f2aa9ff1320c0b674be30258639814afa919e52df9a26441618eaead3cd1b01.jpg
Been bombing Iraq for damn nearly the past thirty years and still haven’t accomplished a damn thing.
Actually they are committing genocide. The levels of horrific birth defects & illness from the depleted uranium dust that is now everywhere is taking a huge toll on the people there.
You need to use words properly. They may be committing mass murder, but not genocide, which is the methodical annihilation of a specific group of people based on race, religion, or other variables. Rwanda was genocide. Bosnia was a genocide. Armenia was a genocide. Iraq/Syria is just a old-fashioned war.
Since that uranium will kill for hundreds of years I meant what I said.
It can kill billions and zillions of people, but if they’re not specifically targeted because of their race or religion, it’s STILL not genocide, idiot. Words in the English language are like scalpels, not butcher knives. The right tool for the job, the right word for the context. That’s why we have Dylans, Faulkners, and Angelous. Why should anyone take you or your ideas seriously if you can’t even express yourself with acuity?
Of a brown race then, Mr. Scalpel. Or how about non-Americans? New age speak old man.
Could you manage to use complete sentences, please? That being said, every generation is “the new age”, yet they don’t seem capable of making the changes they criticize the last generation for not making. Your “new age” can’t even find the friggin’ polls and vote. Try putting down your Xbox controllers, put down your phone, and cut off your Twitter feed- you might actually accomplish something.
You need to get lost man, keith
Tbh, I see where he’s coming from. Hyperbole doesn’t help anyone. Genocide implies that the slaughter is being done for reasons other than financial.
They have killed millions of innocent people and children with their illegal depled ed uraniam bombs and left coming generations left horribly damaged with the land totally nposioned. You say havent acommplished anything? get real. When It starts to happen to you and yours maybe you will start to see. Open your eyes keith
The point isn’t whether or not they’ve killed millions of innocent people, the point is that it’s not genocide. Are you really that dense? It’s not matricide, or patricide, or regicide, or infanticide, either. It’s mass murder, period. You need to actually learn how to put together full, coherent sentences before you start babbling gibberish in the guise of intelligent thought.
This website is named “activist post” and you expect people to not be idealistic? C’mon, man. If this were Genocide, then the Atomic bombings of Japan would also be genocide. Horrible as they may be, calling them Genocide dilutes what makes Genocide uniquely horrifying and deplorable. I agree with you on that, but I think you’re preaching to the wrong congregation.
“Activist” isn’t a synonym of “ignorant” or “stupid”. Otherwise, I obviously agree with your main point.
Your pimping yourself for paycheck and a pension, I wont waste my time with a pimp like youkeith
“…The power to declare war is a serious responsibility. Why were the framers so vague in defining the parameters of war and the conditions under which it could be declared? Section 8, Clause 11 is the
only place of significance where warfare is mentioned in the Constitution. Little wonder this power has been abused. Luther Martin [one of Maryland’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention] protested:
‘…the congress have also a power given them to raise and support armies, without any limitation as to numbers, and without any restriction in time of peace. Thus, sir, this plan of government, instead of guarding against a standing army, that engine of arbitrary power, which has so often and so successfully been used for the subversion of freedom, has in its formation given it an express and constitutional sanction….’40
“John Quincy Adams predicted the consequences of America’s international military entanglements:
“America … has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings…. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy.… She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors, and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force; the frontlet on her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in
false and tarnished luster, the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.41
“Because the framers provided no Biblical parameters, unbiblical warfare has been the rule ever since. Following is a list of the countries bombed by the United States since World War II….
“From 1945 to the present [2012], the United States has bombed nineteen different countries under the guise of defending America’s sovereignty and promoting democracy. But America is none the better for it, and not one of these countries has become a legitimate democracy – not that this would be anything to
celebrate. Something is amiss. Wars fought for political gain or financial profit can only be classified as ungodly acts of aggression….”
For more, see online Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States
Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 4.
Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.
It would be good to have a basic understanding of 20th Century history before making such an ignorant headline. Iraq is technically not even a country, but an amalgam of three independent countries that were cobbled together by the Big Three (Wilson, Clemenseau, and Lloyd-George) in the Treaty of Versailles, which ended WWI. The fact that three independent cultures are shoved together unnaturally not only created an ongoing conflict with both Syria and Iran, but the addition of energy resources have created a non-country with immense resources. There is no such thing as “Iraqis”, but Kurds, Sunni, and Sh’ia communities who have been pushed out/emigrated to “Mesopotamia”.
The unspoken narrative that “if the Americans weren’t bombing Iraq, it would be peaceful” is a load of crap. We aided in making a mess in 1919, and we don’t get to just step out and let others deal with it. As Colin Powell said, this is the “bull in the china shop” school of Foreign Policy- you break it, you bought it. It’s like schtupping a porcupine- it’s really difficult to do without a great deal of discomfort and pain, and almost impossible to do without a million quills in your pecker.
Go play in traffic, now keith
Do you have an advanced degree in gibberish?
Dam right I do. WHO YOU WORKING FOR? CIA? keith
A dam is an earthworks that holds back a river or other body of water. “Damn right” has an “n” in it so you can tell the difference between a curse and the aforementioned earthworks. Nice job spelling “CIA”, BTW. I wouldn’t have bet more than a dollar you could’ve done it.
Just goes to show that Trumpites aren’t the only ones that are illiterate.
I fail to see how that historical context negates the gentleman’s post. America did commit war crimes in Iraq. No amount of past partitioning supersedes that.
The problem is the misuse of the word “genocide”. When you use words with such definitive meanings improperly, it desensitizes people to the word. It’s like calling people who work for a paycheck “a slave” or comparing the soldiers who died in WWII to those who died in concentration camps. Words are important, and just because someone is too ignorant to understand or care about the difference doesn’t let them off the hook.
The neoliberal legacy – war profiteering on steroids.
Yeah, I get it- your name is Keith- or is it Rainman?
The Empire of Evil became the champions of Eugenics way back in the 1930’s and influenced Hitlers Fascists. The World is held for ransom by Washington paid Mercenaries and Terrorists. The Hegelian Dialect is there to be seen in full view, but few people understand it. Untold millions have died to put Money in it’s pocket. However, this Empire is in it’s death throes. It will be the one that is Balkanised as punishment.