Iraq - an abomination of desolation

Tacitus spoke of Roman power.  "They have made a desert and called it peace."  In Iraq, we Americans created an abomination where before us there was merely a desert ruled by a commonplace tyrant.

As I have written before, Iraq as it was created by the British from some of the ruins of the Ottoman Word, is no more.  There is a rump state, recognized internationally, possessing a seat in the UN, perhaps able to defend with foreign help a rump territory south of Baghdad but not able to do much else.

The "Kingdom of Iraq" was called that in 1921 because the new country was conceived as being not Arab, not Sunni Muslim, not Shia Muslim, not Kurdish, not Jewish, not Turkoman, not Yazidi, not Christian, but rather a homeland for all those and more.  IMO it was one of the noblest of British colonial aspirations.  Yes, I know about the oil and the air route to India.  Those who wish to believe that all government is selfishness will believe that to be the true British motives no matter what I say and so I will not bother to argue with them. 

Iraq was created as an experiment in multi-cultural governance in the ME.  As decades passed, the country became more and more Arab, more and more Islamic and less and less rationally governed.  Nevertheless, it remained a grand experiment a process of becoming something new rather than a finished product to be listed in someone's encyclopedia of "nations."

And then came the neocon domination of George W. Bush and the "Mission Accomplished" moment.  The carefully worked out neocon/Zionist plot to trigger an anti-Sunni revolution across the ME, revolution designed to replace "difficult" Sunni governments with malleable minorities.  This revolution was intended to bring on an imagined earthly paradise for Israel.  This dream of utopia destroyed the social order in the the Iraqi experiment and made space for the jihadis, space that had not been allowed them by the dictator.  How do I know that this was intention of the plot?  The plotters boasted of their goal to anyone who would listen.

"They have no culture worth saving" was so typical a statement made just after the dissolution pf the Iraqi government.

What can be done about the jihadi menace?

- The US can abandon its foolish policies in the Islamic World and accept the imperfectability of man and man's institutions in places over which we have no control and little influence.

- The US can make common cause with those who wish to fight the jihadis.

- The US can encourage the election of a Kemalist government in Turkey.  Let us not be hypocritical.  If the Saudis can fund their proxies, We can fund ours sub rosa.  Surely the CIA can manage that.

- The US can back away from the non-alliance with the Wahhabi sponsors of jihadism in Riyadh.

- The US can accept the fact that the Kurds need access to the sea somewhere if their protean state is to survive and mature.  The Turks will never help them with that.  Shia run Iraq will not help them with that.  Russia has no common border with them.  10% of Kurds are Shia.  there are ports for Kurdistan.  They are in the Gulf and the roads to them run through Iran.

- The US should adopt a policy of containment in re ALL the jihadis (including the al- Saud) and then wait for the fire to burn low.  pl 

Comments

[b]

The first thing the Kurds would do should they ever get a state is to fight each other. That is the reason why they never managed to create one and will likely never have one.

It isn't that long ago that the Barzani clan, which now runs a mafia state in north Iraq, called Saddam Hussein to kill off the Talabani clan. The ideological differences between the anarcho-marxists of the YPK and Iraqi-Kurdish capitalist establishment could not be bigger than it is. Any access to the sea would require some heavy ethnic cleansing as there is no "Kurdish corridor" to the Mediterranean except on some fantasy maps.

The best the various Kurdish groups can get is some local/language autonomy within the states they are living in. Anything beyond that will bring their own disaster.

[Van]

We need to pay attention to US proposals for resolving the crisis in Syria. If it calls for local ceasefires etc. we will know that it still wants to protect the jihadists to degrade the Syrian state. If it doesn't protest a new Syrian assault vs Nusra, Isis, and others then we will know that a sea change has occurred. Watch the military battles to discern real White House policy.

[Jin Jeju]

Thank you for this very precise description.

[Babak Makkinejad]

That is what I think too.

[LeaNder]

"I go further and I say that the Nuclear Deal with Iran has a lot to do with the failure of US policy of regime change in Syria."

What else could you prove with this, but a certain continuity in US foreign policy with this? Or is this the layer in MB's comment? ... Sources, reasons, beyond our main focus here?

If I would have picked out a passage from MB's comment to which you respond it would have been this:

"Everyone else has his or her personal agenda - be it careerist or ideological - that is diligently pursued (at various energy levels) to the disregard of what others are doing - much less in reference to some common design.

I have admittedly a very, very hard time to imagine a world without them.

And sorry, this a commonplace, it feels:
"The President looks to be sliding into his post-presidency, Cloud 9 role - troubling himself only as necessary to put the positive spin on the last chapters of his 2 volume memoirs. "

[Babak Makkinejad]

Neither for both are sub-types of Practical Reason, i.e. the application of Reason to the acts of "Doing" (Criminology) and "Making" (Art).

Moses was beyond Reason who exemplified Un-Reason by his belief in God and his Faith that "God would provide" and his obedience to God's commandments.

From the stand-point of Practical Reason his belief and actions were untenable; he was stark raving mad.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Look, last Tuesday or Wednesday, an Iranian passenger airplane landed for the first time in 8 years in Copenhagen.

Who was responsible for deciding that Iran was the enemy of Denmark.

Not Barack Obama.

This New York Times reporter - a Jew - went to Iran a few years back - before the initiation of EU's economic war against Iran was started - was showered by the warmth and hospitality of the Iranian people - and came back to US and urged a merciless sanctions regime against Iran - "With apologies to Iranian people..." he said.

Did Barack Obama made him write that?

Syria is the wages of "Contain Iran" policy pursued over 35 years.

Barack Obama has had the singular achievement of removing a constant possibility of war with Iran by conceding all Iranian nuclear activities within NPT.

The next US president could try to build on that.

[Tidewater]

Tidewater to Bill Herschel,

It seemed to me like a kind of an Orwellian moment when I read your comment about Saudi Arabia and Israel having been all along staunch allies.

Or were you having a senior moment?

In the seventies you had to have corporate sponsors, letters of recommendation from the company sending you out there, and you needed to have a signed letter on church stationery from the current minister of the church where you had been baptised/ confirmed that stated that you were a Christian.

Out of caution, I checked out what the visa requirements are now. Surprisingly, I discovered that there seemed to be a kind of liberalising change. The issue was whether it had become acceptable for, say, a Yemeni Jew to get a visa to work in the Kingdom. That was said to be OK with the Department of Labor. It was so reported in the Israeli papers; and if so it would follow that all Jews would be allowed to work in Saudi Arabia.

Then 'The Middle East Eye' (MEE) reported December 31, 214, that the Saudi government had denied that this was a change in the policy of banning Jews. The whole issue is extremely complicated. The Saudi government does not have a problem with the Jewish faith. I am afraid that is because Islam regards Judaism as an anachonism, to be respected as having been in many ways on the right track, but which Islam totally consumed.

However, one thing is clear. "We cannot accept Israelis because they are linked to Zionism, a Colonialist movement that uses and takes advantage of the Jewish faith. "

The article continues "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) ...has said Saudi Arabia bars anyone from bringing into Saudia Arabia religious ritual objects, including religious texts, from any faith other than Islam, effectively banning religiously observant Jews from entering the country."

It seems likely that changes are coming in visa requirements, but not for Israelis.

[johnf]

From The Guardian:

"Syrian Islamist rebels linked to al-Qaida have struck a wide-ranging ceasefire deal with Bashar al-Assad’s regime. If it holds, the agreement will in effect cede sovereignty of the city of Idlib, create a de facto no-fly zone, and freeze the conflict in several hotspots.

The 25-point deal was brokered by Iran, acting for Damascus, and by Turkey, representing the rebel coalition Jaish al-Fateh, which includes the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra. The deal, which urges UN monitoring and implementation, covers 14 towns in the north and south of the country where intense fighting along sectarian lines had devastated the ranks of all those fighting, taken a bloody toll on civilians left in the area and ravaged towns and infrastructure."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/26/syria
n-rebels-and-assad-regime-agree-ceasefire

[Ishmael Zechariah]

Amen seconded. I will volunteer for the fight that starts theat fire!
Ishmael Zechariah

[LeaNder]

thanks, Babak.

I once again regretted this comment the moment I pushed the post button.

But yes: good idea to pick out Roger Cohen, since I guess that's the reporter you have in mind. He spoke for many of us at that point in time. Maybe especially the ones that woke up to matters post 911, or "Mission accomplished", if you like.

*********
"Syria is the wages of "Contain Iran" policy pursued over 35 years."

I noticed that Syria was always on the to do list of the hawks after "Mission accomplished". Let's first take Syria and then Iran, according to Mr. Faster Please. But, admittedly, from a longer historical perspective, I am missing much knowledge both in politics, foreign affairs.

Why do you suggest the idea of "containing Iran" started 35 years ago. With what specific event. And, was that already related to Iran-Syria relations?

[David Habakkuk]

All,

"They have no culture worth saving".

Having recently been rereading the 1996 'Clean Break' paper, I was struck not simply by its sheer silliness but also by its acute unpleasantness. So indeed I find myself tempted to ask, in relation to the neocons – do they have any 'culture worth saving'?

[Babak Makkinejad]

I did not mean Roger Cohen.

In regards to your last question: read the news papers.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yemeni Jews are considered Arabs and would be treated as such very differently.

It is exactly like this Pakistani fellow explained to me: "Arabs are racists and will treat an Arab Jew better than any Muslim..."

[LeaNder]

No help? concerning which reporter you have mind mind, concerning the "EU's economic war" against Iran???

What specific time frame would you like me to focus on concerning the keywords of the NYT + EU + economics + Iran?

http://tinyurl.com/NYT-EU-economics-Iran

[Babak Makkinejad]

Here is some clarification:

"In Summer of 2012, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times went to Iran and within his return to the U.S. in one of his reports named Pinched and Griping in Iran (June 2012) wrote: “…with apologies to the many wonderful Iranians who showered me with hospitality, I favor sanctions because I don’t see any other way to pressure the regime on the nuclear issue or ease its grip on power. My takeaway is that sanctions are working pretty well.”

My point, however, against the contention Dr. Brenner, was that enmity with Iran - the formal cause of the War-in-Syria-to-Wound-Iran - was not initiated by Mr. Obama; that it was a (NATO) Alliance-Wide consensus, which the EU states fairly well shared with the United States for decades.

There is 6.7 billion dollar court judgment in US against Iran for the 09/11/2001 attacks by Arab, Sunni Muslims against US - go figure. As though Iran had anything to do with those attacks. Yet the judgment predate Mr. Obama.

That is why I dissent from opinions of Walrus ("Obama as a hyper narcissist") and Dr. Brenner ("Obama as incoherent strategist.").

The first charge is meaningless, in my opinion, when considering that candidates for office in US and indeed the rest of Diocletian states have to present themselves as shameless self-promoters whose excellence is presumed to persuade the electorate in these various countries to send to office - since they are such exceptionally competent and visionary and great over-all human beings. Being a narcissist is absolutely essential for competing and wining in general election in all of these states, it seems to me.

Dr. Brenner's laying the charge of (I assume "strategic") incoherence at the feet of Obama is also problematic for me. In my responses to you I have endeavored to show hostility - nay enmity - to Iran has permeated not only the governing structures of US but also those of the European Union for years, if not decades, prior to the election of Mr. Obama.

The roots of the incoherence, in my opinion, are in the Western Diocletians' deep hostility to religion, religious government and anything like that - as well as their claim to the Universality of the Western Experience.

It is inconceivable for me that anyone in the now defunct Colonial Office would have fallen for the 2 above propositions. I suppose when the Colonial Office was dismantled in UK, the last vestiges of actual knowledge of the world outside of the West was lost with it and Westerners entered a world of fantasy.

Iraq & Syria are not worst of it; the worst of it is flirting with World War III around Russia and China - as though there is any margin in that.

Walrus and Dr. Brenner wish for Mr. Obama to get their chestnuts out of fire, in a manner of speaking, all the while bringing on himself all the wrath and trouble of going against the grain of an entrenched policy which - as I stated before - has deep roots in the Weltanschauung of Western polities and their leaders.

Why should he bother when even his recognition of Iran's rights within NPT had caused him so much headache?

Why does not Angela Merkel fly to Tehran, kiss the hand of Ayatollah Khamenei and publicly apologize for waging an unprovoked economic war against Iran?

Why does not Mr. Hollande?

[DH]

The full name of the paper, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, is rather terrifying. Once in a while I look at the list of original signatories to PNAC's Statement of Principles:

http://tinyurl.com/q4998gm

[Thomas]

David,

Since the Nouveau Khans* believe in using "creative reality" to bring about societal destruction, the only culture you could say they have is Domination by the Superior Select. Instead of saving, it would be morally responsible to eradicate it and remove its practitioners from power before they bring on complete ruin.

I was watching Doctor Zhivago again Friday and in the scene when Yuri is finishing school his professor, understanding of the young man's idealism, gives these words of wisdom "Pretty creatures do ugly things to people". Timeless words.

*Definition of Kagan- Khan of the Khans.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/khagan

[gemini33]

Now I am starting to understand why you (Col Lang) push back against people who argue that economic and resources motives are driving our ME policy. It's not that they are not a factor, it's that they are not at the root of of it.

It's astounding that a relatively small number of people could take this country and numerous allies into a prolonged war in order for zionists to carry out a dangerous and fantastical scheme in which they remake the ME into their own utopia. By rallying others with different motives (war industry, control of resources, Saudi fear of Iran) the relatively small number of drivers became bigger and the motives (from perspective of the outside observer) more muddled.

The only real hint that I ever saw in the public domain about the underlying motives to replace govts came from Wes Clark's speeches in 2007 when he told the story of his visit to the Pentagon about 10 days after 9/11 and when he tied that to an earlier conversation with Wolfowitz in the early 90s. But even then Wolfowitz told him they wanted to clean up the "Soviet client regimes". He talks about 1991 meeting with PW at the 3min mark in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E

Please forgive my ignorance, but is this reasoning bunk or is goal of removing problematic "Sunni governments" the same as what PW called cleaning up "those old Soviet client regimes"?

[turcopolier]

genini33

It is bunk. None of these countries wee satellites of the USSR. They just took their money as they take ours. pl

[LeaNder]

I assume that both Merkel and Hollande, may not necessarily apologize for the economic war against Iran; maybe they won't even kiss the hand of Ayatollah Khamenei either. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if either visited Iran next year, and if they are advised that this is established etiquette they may well do. If in front of a camera is another question. ;)

Apparently, and yes maybe somewhat paradoxically from your perspective Germany's minister of economics,, with his entourage, I guess, already went there.

I do not feel any enmity or hostility against Iran, I do feel empathy for its people. As everywhere not necessarily for them collectively.

To the extend I understand your critique of Europe, maybe it is meant to include earlier Western colonies, lately it often seemed to, let me acknowledge a biased perspective on theocracy. You can blame Carl Schmitt for that.

"The roots of the incoherence, in my opinion, are in the Western Diocletians' deep hostility to religion, religious government and anything like that - as well as their claim to the Universality of the Western Experience."

Doesn't religion claim universality occasionally?

But thank, interesting comment.

[Patrick Bahzad]

Croesus,

I think you're cutting George W. too much slack. and sometimes, quite often actually, conspiracy theories - like the one you're laying out - are mere fantasies !

I'm not even sure I understand the logic of containing the USSR through pushing Iraq to attack Iran in the early 1980s. What sick brain did come up with such lunacy ?

As for "Desert Storm", it's public knowledge, the King of Saudi-Arabia literally begged the US to deploy troops following Saddam's invasion of Iraq. Again it wasn't about hegemony, or merely as the fantasy by-product of some armchair-strategists in the Beltway.

The only continuity between "DS" and "OIF" is that US boots on the ground in KSA angered OBL and his motley crew so much, that they ended up declaring war to the US.

That's the only link to George W., a purely circumstantial connection. Nothing planned or thought through. That would be over-estimating the abilities of some of the brain dead and brain damaged people who were actually in charge.

[Babak Makkinejad]

I do not care about Western colonies etc.

My point was that Dr. Brenner and Walrus are expecting too much from Mr. Obama.

Fly-over-America hates Islam & Iran; I gather the same obtains in many countries in EU.

Yet they are not taking to task EU leaders for their viscous policy of economic war against Iran.

Walrus and Brenner, indirectly, are stating that EU leaders are satraps to the Great King and have no independent volition of their own.

Well, I cannot accept that as being either fair or accurate.

[turcopolier]

Babak

A lot of flyover America still hates Catholicism. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

Let me shake your hand - metaphorically & virtually - and state: "Welcome to the Club!"