Thursday 26th of December 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

the new saddam .....

the new saddam .....

When the insurgency started in the summer of 2003, it was made up primarily of the same class of alienated Sunnis who are now part of the tribal Anbar Awakening.

The insurgents I spent time with in 2003 and 2004 were, in essence, nationalists who didn’t like the U.S. Army driving around their villages, kicking down their doors and shooting their cousins at checkpoints. They were also deeply suspicious of American plans for democracy, because they feared it would lead to Iran taking over the government.

Some hated Saddam, some liked him, but Saddam wasn’t the issue. For want of a better term, they are the equivalent of rednecks who believe in God, their country, and the right to bear arms.

But rather than come up with an intelligent counter-insurgency policy, reach out to traditional tribal social structures and try to understand why American soldiers were getting killed, U.S. military leaders did what Americans have gotten very good at doing in the last few years.

They made up a story, which they repeated on the news for U.S. domestic consumption—and then started to believe themselves. In this story, evil foreign terrorists led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a chubby Jordanian freelance terrorist, were setting upon the popular U.S. Army. AMZ, as the U.S. Army jauntily called him, existed, but he was a minor figure unlikely to get much of a following on his own in Iraq. Jordanians are not greatly respected by Sunni tribal Iraqis, who tend to view them as the metrosexuals of the Middle East.

I used to watch the nightly news with insurgents—they called themselves the “resistance”—and they would laugh at what U.S. spokesmen were saying about the insurgency and Zarqawi’s prominence. But from the U.S. perspective, “tribal freedom fighter,” as the former Sunni insurgents are described today, does not sound as good as “foreign terrorist” or “anti-Iraqi fighter” when you are trying to demonize people fighting your occupation.

How George Bush Became The New Saddam

Butcher of Baghdad...

May I draw attention to yourdemocracy's already published version of this "concept" a couple of years ago ... The butcher of Baghdad... Not that I am gloating that "we" told the world so long ago (2 years is a long time when your life is in danger daily) but I am very sad that it took so long for a mainstream publication to come to the same conclusion. Yes, BUSH IS THE NEW SADDAM...

Bush [booo-sh]

Revealed: script for Bush's mangled words By David Usborne in New York Published: 26 September 2007

There is nothing mysterious about George Bush when he comes to the annual General Assembly of the United Nations. He comes, he excoriates countries he doesn't care for and he leaves. Everyone knows the routine and while some other world leaders may spit his name, they sure know how to pronounce it.

But the President, who used his appearance at the podium yesterday to call for a "mission of liberation" to bring democracy and human rights to countries under dictatorship or repressive rule, needs a little help in this regard.

...

Safe from Mr Bush's famously dyslexic tongue, therefore, were the Presidents of France [sar-KO-zee] and Zimbabwe [moo-GAH-bee]. The speech-writers, whose names and even telephone numbers were also posted at the end of the wrongly circulated version, also helped him with the capitals of Zimbabwe [hah-RAR-ray] and of Venezuela [kah-RAH-kus].

US chaos in M-E....

The Drums of War Are Beating in Iraq: An In-Depth Analysis

As tensions in Iraq reach a boiling point, the specter of war looms large once again. The United States has issued a three-week ultimatum demanding the dissolution of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), a coalition of predominantly Shiite militias that were pivotal in combating ISIS. This deadline has now reached its critical end, sparking widespread speculation about an imminent military confrontation.

The Popular Mobilization Forces, established in 2014 with Iranian backing, have evolved into a powerful paramilitary organization deeply embedded within Iraq’s political and security framework. Their refusal to disband, coupled with the Iraqi government’s inability to comply with American demands, has led to escalating tensions. Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani finds himself in a precarious position, unable to dismantle the PMF without risking internal chaos or alienating influential Iranian allies.

U.S. Military Escalation

In response to Iraq’s hesitation, the U.S. Central Command has bolstered its military presence. Approximately 2,500 Marines and special forces have been deployed to secure the U.S. Embassy within Baghdad’s Green Zone, signaling preparations for potential hostilities. Beyond Baghdad, U.S. bases across Iraq and along the Syrian border have been reinforced with an additional 6,000 troops. These movements suggest the U.S. is preparing for rapid escalation should the Iraqi government fail to act against the PMF.

The U.S. has reportedly issued an additional three-day deadline, insisting on the disbandment of the PMF and demanding that religious authorities issue a fatwa supporting this action. Failure to comply, Washington warns, will result in military strikes aimed at crippling the PMF and neutralizing its command structure.

Regional Implications

The stakes extend far beyond Iraq. For Iran, the PMF represents a critical component of its regional strategy, providing both strategic depth and influence within Iraq. Tehran views the PMF as a bulwark against Sunni extremism and Western intervention. Losing this foothold would not only weaken Iran’s position in Iraq but also diminish its ability to project power across Lebanon and Syria, where Iranian proxies remain entrenched.

Iran’s anxieties are compounded by recent developments in Washington. High-profile conferences involving Iranian opposition figures, including Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last Shah, signal renewed American efforts to destabilize the Iranian regime. These meetings evoke memories of similar gatherings of Iraqi Shiite exiles in the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion, raising concerns in Tehran that history may be repeating itself.

Historical Parallels

Iran is acutely aware of the parallels to the lead-up to the Iraq War. In the years preceding the 2003 invasion, Iraqi Shiite exiles, with U.S. backing, were groomed to assume power following Saddam Hussein’s ouster. Today, Iran fears that a similar strategy may be unfolding—one aimed at regime change in Tehran via destabilization of its regional allies and proxies.

Faced with these threats, Iran may seek to delay or derail U.S. plans by leveraging its influence in Iraq. Tehran could encourage the PMF to resist dissolution, escalate attacks against U.S. forces, or instigate broader regional conflicts to shift attention away from itself. At the same time, Iran may pursue diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions, hoping to secure concessions or capitalize on shifting international dynamics.

Domestic Pressures in Iraq

The Iraqi government’s reversal of its initial decision to dissolve the PMF underscores the internal pressures it faces. While U.S. demands carry the weight of economic and military consequences, Iranian influence within Iraq remains formidable. Key political factions, religious leaders, and militia commanders aligned with Iran exert considerable sway, making it politically untenable for Baghdad to comply fully with Washington’s demands.

Iraq’s precarious position reflects the broader struggle for dominance between the U.S. and Iran. The PMF, initially mobilized to combat ISIS, has since entrenched itself within Iraq’s security apparatus and political landscape. Its dissolution would not only undermine Iran’s influence but also create a security vacuum that could reignite sectarian violence.

Iran’s Strategic Calculations

Iran’s strategy appears twofold: buy time through diplomatic maneuvering while preparing for potential confrontation. Tehran may hope that shifting geopolitical circumstances—such as tensions between the U.S. and other global powers—could provide an opening for negotiations. Alternatively, Iran could exploit divisions within Iraq and the broader region to frustrate U.S. objectives.

Iran also views Iraq as a first line of defense. Having lost significant influence in Syria and Lebanon due to ongoing conflicts and economic crises, Iran cannot afford to cede Iraq. Tehran’s support for the PMF reflects this broader strategic imperative, reinforcing its determination to resist U.S. efforts to dismantle these militias.

Escalation Scenarios

The current trajectory suggests several potential outcomes:

  1. Limited Strikes and Retaliation: The U.S. could launch precision strikes against PMF leadership and infrastructure, prompting retaliatory attacks against American personnel and assets in Iraq and Syria. Such exchanges could spiral into broader conflict.
  2. Full-Scale Confrontation: If diplomatic efforts fail, the U.S. might escalate to a larger military campaign targeting Iran’s network of proxies across the region. This scenario risks drawing in regional players like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, further destabilizing the Middle East.
  3. Diplomatic De-escalation: Iran could offer concessions, such as curbing PMF activities or agreeing to partial disarmament, in exchange for sanctions relief or security guarantees. While less likely given current hostilities, this outcome could prevent war.
  4. Internal Fragmentation: Iraq could face internal collapse if tensions between pro-Iran and pro-U.S. factions escalate, leading to renewed sectarian violence and undermining national stability.
The Role of Jordan and Egypt

Neighboring states are closely monitoring the situation. Jordan and Egypt, both key U.S. allies, fear spillover effects, including refugee flows, sectarian strife, and increased terrorist activity. They may act as intermediaries to mediate between Washington and Tehran or provide logistical support for U.S. operations.

Jordan, in particular, shares borders with both Iraq and Syria, making it a strategic partner for any military or intelligence operations. Egypt, with its significant regional clout, may leverage its diplomatic channels to promote de-escalation, though its primary concern remains stability rather than taking sides.

Conclusion

Iraq stands at a crossroads, caught between competing pressures from Washington and Tehran. The drums of war echo ominously, signaling a return to conflict in a region already scarred by decades of violence. While diplomacy may yet offer a path to de-escalation, the likelihood of confrontation grows with each passing day.

The U.S. sees the dissolution of the PMF as a crucial step in curbing Iranian influence and securing its interests in the region. Iran, however, views the PMF as indispensable to its defense strategy, making compromise difficult. With deadlines passed and military preparations underway, the possibility of another war in Iraq becomes increasingly real.

For Iraq, the challenge lies in preserving sovereignty while navigating the treacherous waters of geopolitical rivalry. Whether through diplomacy or force, the decisions made in the coming days will shape the region’s future and determine whether the Middle East once again descends into chaos.

 

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/12/24/the-drums-of-war-are-beating-in-iraq-_/

 

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

 

 

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.