RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Who Are Iraq's Sunni Arabs and What Did We Do to Them? Print
Wednesday, 18 June 2014 15:37

Cole writes: "The two great branches of Islam coexist in Iraq across linguistic and ethnic groups. There are Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs, Sunni Kurds and (a tiny minority of) Shiite Kurds. Arabs are a linguistic group, speaking a Semitic language. Kurds speak and Indo-European language related to English."

Iraqi soldiers. (photo: unknown)
Iraqi soldiers. (photo: unknown)


Who Are Iraq's Sunni Arabs and What Did We Do to Them?

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

18 June 14

 

he two great branches of Islam coexist in Iraq across linguistic and ethnic groups. There are Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs, Sunni Kurds and (a tiny minority of) Shiite Kurds. Arabs are a linguistic group, speaking a Semitic language. Kurds speak and Indo-European language related to English.

Sunnism and Shiism as we know them have evolved over nearly a millennium and a half. But the difference between them begins after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD (CE) in the city-state of Mecca in western Arabia. Muhammad, the son of Abdallah, had derived from the noble Quraysh clan. Those who became the Shiites insisted he should be succeeded by Ali, his cousin and son-in-law (and the next best thing to a living son). This dynastic principle was rejected by the group that became the Sunnis. They turned for leadership to prominent notables of the Quraysh, whom they saw as caliphs or vicars of the Prophet. The first three caliphs were his in-laws, but Sunni principles said that they needn’t have been– any prominent, pious male of the Quraysh would have done.

There is a vague analogy to the split between Catholicism and Protestantism, on the difference between seeing Peter as the foundation of the Church and of seeing Paul as that.

Iraq was part of the medieval caliphates– the Orthodox Caliphs, then the Umayyad Arab kingdom, and then the Abbasids. In 1258 the invading Mongols (themselves Buddhists and animists) sacked Baghdad and executed the last caliph. It is said that they were warned that it was very bad luck to shed the blood of a caliph, so they rolled him up in a Persian rug and beat him to death with hammers.

Parts of what is now Iraq were ruled by the Mongol Il Khanid state (which gradually became Muslim), and then by fragmented small principalities until the rise of the two great Middle Eastern empires of the early modern period, the Safavid and the Ottoman. The Safavids, based in Iran, were Shiites and ruled Baghdad 1508-1534. Then the Ottomans, Sunnis based in what is now Turkey, took Iraq in 1534 and ruled it, with the exception of a couple of decades of Iranian reassertion, until World War I.

The elite of Iraq was Sunni since the medieval period, though there were always significant Shiite movements. In the course of the late 18th and the nineteenth centuries, under Ottoman rule, the tribes of the south of Iraq gradually converted to Shiite Islam. This may have been a form of protest against Ottoman oppression. It was in part influence from wealthy Shiite states in India after the fall of the Mughal Empire in the 1700s and before the imposition of British direct rule over all of North India from 1856. The Indian Shiite potentates or Nawabs gave money for the building of water canals out to the shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, which suffered from lack of water. Once the canals were built, tribes irrigated off them and settled near the holy cities, the residents of which proselytized them into Shiism.

The elites of Mosul and Baghdad, however, tied to patronage from the Ottoman Sultan, resisted this conversion movement and remained Sunnis, recognizing the four Orthodox Caliphs. From about 1880, Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II started claiming to be a caliph, on the medieval model. This claim wasn’t universally accepted but it was popular among Muslims in colonized British India in particular. The British, French and Russians defeated the Ottomans in World War I, after which the empire collapsed. In 1924 the new secular Republic of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Attaturk abolished the caliphate. Sunnis became like Protestants, organized by country and lacking a central node of authority. Some fundamentalist Sunnis refused to accept this situation and dreamed of reconstituting the caliphate as a center of authority that could unite 1.5 billion Muslims and deliver them from their divided estate and consequent weakness in the face of the West.

When the British took Iraq during World War I, after the Ottomans unwisely allied with Germany and Austria, they mainly turned to the Sunni elites as partners in building a new “Mandate” or colony recognized by the League of Nations. When the Iraqis revolted in 1920 against the prospect of British colonialism, desiring independent statehood instead, the British brought in Faisal as king. He was the son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, and a Sunni, who had allied with the British (think Lawrence of Arabia) to revolt against the Ottomans during the war.

Faisal lacked roots in Iraq, and turned, in order to rule the country, to the Sunni mercantile and bureaucratic elites of Baghdad and Mosul. He also picked up the remnants of the Ottoman-trained officer corps to constitute his new military, almost all of the Sunnis (the Sunni Ottomans were skittish about 12er Shiite officers).

Although the Shiites were a majority in Iraq, Sunnis predominated in positions of power and wealth throughout the twentieth century. When the Baath Party, a secular, socialist and nationalist movement, came to power in 1968, it was dominated by Sunnis from the area north of Baghdad. The Baathists created a one-party state and repressed religious Shiites (and also religious Sunnis who mixed in politics). The high generals, bureaucrats, entrepreneurs and politicians were Sunni. There were Shiites in the Baath Party, but they had less status than the Sunnis. After the Gulf War of 1990-91 when the US and allies pushed Iraq back out of Kuwait, the Shiites of south Iraq rose up. The US had urged them to do so, but stood by while the Baath massacred the Shiites. The Shiite religious parties interpreted this spring 1991 repression as sectarian genocide. Belonging to the main Shiite religious party, the Da’wa (Call or Mission) Party, was made a capital crime by the Baath already in 1980 and members were often killed and put in mass graves.

In the 1990s when Iraq was under severe US and UN sanctions, some lived on smuggling oil and other goods out to Jordan. The Jordanian form of modern Sunni fundamentalism, or Salafism, made inroads into Iraq along truck stop towns like Fallujah and Ramadi. The Baath Party, although hostile, winked at this development because sanctions made it weak. At the same time, Baath leader Izzat Duri developed ties of patronage with the Naqshbandi Sufi order in Mosul. Sufism or Muslim mysticism is the opposite of fundamentalism, valuing rituals and saints and mystical experiences of God. Both Salafism and Sufism had a revival in the 1990s.

The US overthrew Saddam Hussein of the Baath Party in 2003 in alliance with Shiite groups primarily. Those Shiite groups wanted revenge on the disproportionately Sunni Baath Party. They carried out a program of “de-Baathification,” in which they fired tens of thousands of Sunni Arabs from their government jobs as bureaucrats and even teachers. They hired Shiite clients instead. The Neocons hated the state-owned industries, and closed them down as inefficient without putting anything in their place. The Bush administration backed Shiite supremacism and debaathification to the hilt. Its proponents likened it to de-Nazification after WW II in Germany, but actually former Nazis below the top level in Germany typically kept their jobs.

In the new Iraq, Sunni high status was turned upside down. The Sunnis had been the top graduates of the officer training academies, the equivalent of West Point. They disproportionately dominated the officer corps. They were at the top of the Baath Party. They were the rich entrepreneurs to whom lucrative government contracts were given. Now they were made unemployed, or given menial jobs, while the goodies went to the members of Shiite religious parties. Massive unemployment swept the Sunni cities in 2003-2004.

In 2005 the US was maneuvered by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and his allies, all Shiites, into having parliamentary elections. Because of the US military attack on Sunni Fallujah, the Sunnis of Mosul, Ramadi and elsewhere boycotted that election. Sistani had insisted that the parliament also function as a constituent assembly to draft the constitution. There were almost no Sunnis in the first 2005 parliament, so the constitution was crafted by the Shiites and the Kurds. They Sunnis rejected it in their provinces by a solid majority (by 2/3s in two provinces).

Sunnis all along were nervous about the Shiite-Kurdish government erected under the Americans and some turned to guerrilla warfare. When guerrillas blew up the Golden Dome shrine in Samarra in February 2006, a site sacred to Shiites, it kicked off a civil war. In summer of 2006 3000 people were being killed a month. Shiite militias ethnically cleansed Sunnis from mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad. When Gen. Petraeus conducted his troop escalation (‘surge’), he disarmed the Sunni militias first, inadvertently leaving Sunnis in the capital vulnerable to threats and night raids. The Sunnis ran away to Syria and Jordan or to Mosul. After a while there were few mixed neighborhoods and it was harder for Shiites and Sunnis to get at one another, so the violence subsided.

In the one-chamber Iraqi parliament, Sunnis would always be a minority. When they stopped boycotting they typically got 56 seats. The Shiites and Kurds typically allied against them so that they lost all important votes. In 2010, they united behind the Iraqiya Party of ex-Baathist Ayad Allawi, which became of the largest single party in parliament, with 91 seats. But Allawi could not find Shiite or Kurdish allies to bring his total up to 51% and so could only have headed a minority government open to being toppled at any time by a vote of no confidence. In contrast Nouri al-Maliki of the Da’wa Party put together, with Iran’s help, a Shiite majority and allied with the Kurds for a super-majority. President Jalal Talabani therefore appointed al-Maliki to a second term.

Secular groups like the 1920 Revolution Brigades and the Army of Muhammad, and Sufi ones like the Men of the Naqshbandiya, formed cells to fight the American occupation. Another of the Sunni insurgent groups was al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, led by the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was killed in 2006, but it made no difference to the movement, which continued to blow things up. When US military officers in the field in 2005 tried to reach out to disaffected Sunni tribes, Condi Rice is said to have stopped them, lest Washington offend its Shiite allies in Baghdad. Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia later started styling itself the Islamic State of Iraq. It engaged in extensive terrorist operations in a bid to stop the new Shiite-dominated government from establishing itself. When the revolution in Syria turned violent in late 2011, its fighters went there and the organization became the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or Iraq and the Levant). It is said to have received money from rich private businessmen in Kuwait who support the fundamentalist Salafi form of Sunni Islam, and which typically hates Shiites. ISIS became the best fighters and they captured Syrian Baath military bases and took towns like Raqqa and Aleppo neighborhoods.

From 2011 when there was a ‘Sunni Arab Spring’ in Iraq, with urban youth demonstrations and demands for an end to discrimination, the al-Maliki government heavy-handedly repressed it. If it instead had accommodated those moderate young people in their demands, it might have avoided losing the Sunni areas to religious extremists.

In the 2014 elections, the Sunnis did poorly and it was clear that they would continue to be marginalized in parliament by Shiites and Kurds. The Shiite-dominated government provided them with few services or jobs. Although Iraq is an oil state, you can’t tell it. I was in Baghdad last year this time and it was dowdy and nothing like Abu Dhabi or Dubai. In Mosul, residents complained of electricity outages and lack of services or jobs. Shiite troops often put up Shiite insignia to humiliate Sunnis. They frisked Sunnis at checkpoints. Sunnis felt as though they were frozen out of meaningful power and treated as though under Shiite occupation. This situation derived in part from the invidious Bush policies of backing the Shiites against the Sunnis.

ISIS, having gained fighting experience and a taste of urban administration in Syria, expanded its cells back in Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul in western and northern Iraq. Last January it took over Fallujah and parts of Ramadi west of Baghdad. Last week it took over Mosul and most other towns in Ninevah Province. This was not primarily a military conquest but a coordinated urban uprising against Iraqi security forces, in coordination with other Sunni groups, including secular ex-Baathists. ISIS also tried to advance into Salahuddin and Diyala Provinces, though it seems to have been checked there by the Iraqi army and Sunni tribal and urban allies. At the moment, ISIS is a force in al-Anbar and Ninevah Provinces, which are mostly Sunni Arab. But they are demographically vastly outnumbered by the Kurds and Shiites, who could well riposte militarily.

Sunni Iraqis had been in the 20th century cosmopolitan and often modernists. Many were liberals yearning for democracy. From 1968 they turned to more of a Soviet model, a strongly secular one. They have turned in desperation to rural fundamentalists who want a medieval caliphate only because of the vast reversal in their fortunes resulting from the Bush invasion and occupation, and the unfair policies of the Shiite government, which has turned them from an elite into an underclass. They are capable, trained, educated people. They aren’t going to put up with that, and if turning to al-Qaeda is the only way to avoid that fate, they are often willing now to do it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Up Close and Personal With George W. Bush's Horrifying Legacy Print
Wednesday, 18 June 2014 15:35

Sheer writes: "The Iraq disaster remains George W. Bush's enduring folly, and the Republican attempt to shift the blame to the Obama presidency is obscene nonsense. This was, and will always be, viewed properly as Bush's quagmire, a murderous killing field based on blatant lies."

President George W. Bush holds a news conference in the briefing room of the White House in Washington July 15, 2008. (photo:: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
President George W. Bush holds a news conference in the briefing room of the White House in Washington July 15, 2008. (photo:: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)


Up Close and Personal With George W. Bush's Horrifying Legacy

By Robert Sheer, TruthDig

18 June 14

 

he Iraq disaster remains George W. Bush’s enduring folly, and the Republican attempt to shift the blame to the Obama presidency is obscene nonsense. This was, and will always be, viewed properly as Bush’s quagmire, a murderous killing field based on blatant lies.

This showcase of American deceit, obvious to the entire world, began with the invented weapons of mass destruction threat that Bush, were he even semi-cognizant of the intelligence data, must have known represented an egregious fraud. So was his nonsensical claim that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, when in fact he was Osama bin Laden’s most effective Arab opponent.

Yet Bush responded to the 9/11 attacks by overthrowing a leader who had banished al-Qaida from Iraq and who had been an ally of the United States in the war to contain Iran’s influence in the region. Instead of confronting the funders of Sunni extremism based in Saudi Arabia, the home of 15 of the 19 hijackers and their Saudi leader bin Laden, Bush chose to attack the secular leader of Iraq. That invasion, as the evidence of the last week confirms, resulted in an enormous boon to both Sunni extremists and their militant Shiite opponents throughout the Mideast.

How pathetic that Secretary of State John Kerry is now reduced to begging the ayatollahs of Iran to come to the aid of their brethren in Iraq. Or that the movement to overthrow the secular leader of Syria, a movement supported by the United States, has resulted in a base for Sunni terrorists in Iraq and Syria of far greater consequence than the one previously used to plot the 9/11 attacks from isolated Afghanistan.

Imagine if Barack Obama had succumbed to his critics’ demands that he supply the insurgents in Syria with sophisticated weaponry? Those weapons would now be turned against the fragmenting Iraqi army that the United States trained at an enormous cost. Or if he had chosen military confrontation with Iran instead of diplomacy in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, leaving the Shiite leaders of Iraq squeezed between enemies on two fronts. The elected government in Iraq has a chance to survive only because Obama gave peace a chance in choosing to negotiate with the government of Iran.

The only error Obama made in ending the U.S. military role in Iraq was not moving fast enough to disengage from Bush’s nation-building fantasies. Where is the evidence that it ever works, particularly in the Mideast? The United States has backed the military ruling class in Egypt for more than three decades, and the instant the much-hoped-for transition to democracy appeared, those same corrupt generals scurried for safety to the embrace of oil drenched Saudi religious fanatics. Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi is now gone, only to be replaced by militants given to an even harsher brand of oppression. Yet a bipartisan consensus of Washington politicians still believes that the overthrow of the secular leader of Syria is somehow consistent with the proclaimed goals of the war on terrorism.

It obviously isn’t, as the anti-Assad Sunni militants who now freely cross the border from Syria to Iraq waving flags in support of al-Qaida have attested. It is further evidence that dealing with terrorism in militaristic battle terms rather than as a social pathology to be treated as an illness is a dangerous diversion. The war on terrorism is as irrational a concept as a war on cancer or the flu in that it assumes that the military arsenal is the deciding factor when it never is, for long.

The seeds of radical discontent throughout the world, but particularly in the Mideast, derive from myriad complex and intertwined causes. In this region, the obvious sources of tension in religious grievances, stagnant economies and frustrated nationalism—as with the obviously legitimate demands of Palestinians and Kurds—have been wildly exacerbated down through the centuries by the imperial ambitions of non-regional actors. Those prisoners of imperial hubris always underestimated the resilience of the occupied and came to believe their own lies about being crusaders for enlightenment.

That is a dangerous delusion energetically asserted by the Paul Wolfowitzes and Dick Cheneys even now, as their mad schemes for a reinvented Mideast spectacularly disintegrate. In their minds, it is still deeply felt that if only Obama had stayed the course of occupation, we would be greeted as liberators, while our corporations quietly sucked up their oil.

Presidential candidate Obama made clear his contempt for that neocon pipe dream. Once elected, in regard to winding down the Iraq War, he has not strayed far from that conviction, and on this he much deserves our support. This is so even if it means going through the next decades of our political life arguing about “Who Lost Iraq?” the way we once argued about “Who Lost China?”—ignoring that neither country was truly ours to lose.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Focusing International Efforts on Ivory Slaughter Print
Wednesday, 18 June 2014 15:30

Christy writes: "Ask anyone in America-anyone in the world, for that matter-to name an international wildlife trafficker, and chances are they won't be able to give a single name, even though wildlife crime is widely viewed as being among the world's most profitable forms of transnational crime."

A sculpture like this, for sale at the White Peacock Arts World in 2011, can take a master carver years to produce. China is the world's largest consumer of ivory. (photo: Brent Stirton, Getty/National Geographic)
A sculpture like this, for sale at the White Peacock Arts World in 2011, can take a master carver years to produce. China is the world's largest consumer of ivory. (photo: Brent Stirton, Getty/National Geographic)


Focusing International Efforts on Ivory Slaughter

By Bryan Christy, National Geographic

18 June 14

 

sk anyone in America to name an organized crime figure, and chances are they can do it: Al Capone in the 1920s. "Bugsy" Siegel in the 1930s and '40s. John Gotti in the 1970s and '80s.

Ask anyone in America to name an international organized crime figure, and chances are they can do that: Maybe they'll mention Pablo Escobar, who helped lead the Medellín drug cartel for nearly two decades until he was killed in 1993. They might mention "El Chapo" Guzmán, the Mexican drug kingpin who was arrested this year.

But ask anyone in America—anyone in the world, for that matter—to name an international wildlife trafficker, and chances are they won't be able to give a single name, even though wildlife crime is widely viewed as being among the world's most profitable forms of transnational crime.

If anyone can name an international wildlife trafficker, it's Anson Wong. I wrote about him for a National Geographic in 2010 called "The Kingpin," because we wanted to send a signal to the world that wildlife crime has a face too.

What happens when violent crime has a face? The public demands protection. It supports stronger laws, more prosecutions, and better sentences from judges. It is willing to pay for these things too. It is willing to fund police and crime-fighting agencies such as the FBI.

Beginning in 2011 the world saw the face of a primary victim of international wildlife trafficking, the African elephant. Vanity Fair ran "Agony and Ivory," a story that brought the elephant poaching crisis to a broad audience. The following year, Jeffrey Gettleman of The New York Times told the story of the links between ivory trafficking and terrorist groups in Africa. The Lord's Resistance Army, the Janjaweed, and Al Shabaab became a face of those groups killing elephants on a commercial scale.

In October 2012, National Geographic published "Blood Ivory," which examined the demand side of the illegal ivory trade and the difficulty in controlling it. We discovered that religion was a major driver of ivory consumption, along with the more predictable desires: status or investment.

Law Enforcement Steps Up

In the months following these stories, Philippine police raided religious ivory shops. Police in Italy raided shops in Vatican City and Abruzzo.

International efforts that combined national enforcement authorities in countries such as China, Thailand, and Kenya; local and international nongovernmental organizations; CITES (the U.N.'s wildlife trade organization); and Interpol were launched against ivory trafficking.

In 2013, the Philippines announced it would destroy its entire stock of seized ivory, the first time in history a non-African country had done so. The United States followed, and since then four other countries, including China and Hong Kong, have destroyed part or all of their national ivory stocks.

On Capitol Hill, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, now Secretary of State, held a hearing on the elephant-poaching crisis. More hearings followed, fostered by the International Conservation Caucus Foundation.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held the country's first wildlife trafficking roundtable at the White House, and in July 2013 President Barack Obama launched the nation's first Cabinet-level Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking.

This year in London, Prince Charles and Prince William helped lead an international gathering of nearly 50 countries focused on the African elephant.

The U.S. has announced a domestic ivory ban, and the Philippines and Chad have called upon all nations to increase restrictions on ivory trade, including over the Internet.

Online auctioning of ivory is a major problem, but some online merchandisers, such as eBay, and the television series Antiques Roadshow have removed ivory from their offerings.

Measures in China

Demand reduction efforts are under way in the leading ivory-consuming country, China. There, some of the country's wealthiest business leaders have announced opposition to ivory. But the Chinese government has yet to announce that the country is out of the ivory business.

In Hong Kong, a girl named Celia Ho launched her own Save the Elephants Campaign. More students took action there, and recently some of Hong Kong's biggest department stores agreed to stop selling ivory.

Many of these actions were facilitated by a long list of international conservation organizations. In Africa, there is hope to go with tragedy. The world learned about the crisis in Chad's Zakouma National Park in the pages of National Geographic, but recently rangers there discovered the birth of more than 25 elephant calves.

In Togo, a country with almost no elephants, enforcement officers are seizing ivory passing through its port and arresting and prosecuting traffickers.

The Slaughter Continues

Still, the elephant killing goes on—with bullets, poison, grenades, snares, and spears.

A key population of elephants in Tanzania has fallen by 80 percent in just six years, and forest elephants have dropped by 65 percent during the past decade.

Rangers in Garamba National Park, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, have discovered 68 elephant bodies over the past two months. And in Kenya's Tsavo East National Park, a massive old tusker named Satao has just been killed, causing an outpouring of grief and anger among the men and women dedicated to saving elephants in that country.

This week, Obama's Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking issued its recommendations, which can be summarized as: strengthening enforcement, reducing demand, and increasing international cooperation.

The council also recommended amending U.S. law to increase wildlife prosecutions and treating wildlife trafficking as organized crime—under the same federal statutes that were used to go after the Mafia.

We know the victim. We have the will. We know terrorists are behind much of the killing. We now need to put a face on international ivory trafficking.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Republicans: Party of Sedition and Cop-Killing? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Wednesday, 18 June 2014 13:25

Pierce writes: "Are you happy now, Wayne LaPierre? Are you happy now, Glenn Beck, and Alex Jones, and Dana Loesch, and everyone else who gins up thoughts of armed insurrection for the purposes of profits and ratings and their personal dreams of vicarious revolution?"

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. (photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)
Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. (photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)


Republicans: Party of Sedition and Cop-Killing?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

18 June 14

 

re you happy now, Wayne LaPierre? Are you happy now, Glenn Beck, and Alex Jones, and Dana Loesch, and everyone else who gins up thoughts of armed insurrection for the purposes of profits and ratings and their personal dreams of vicarious revolution? Are you happy now, all you Open Carry nitwits and weekend Robespierres and suburban Minuteman idiots who believe in the FEMA camps and the New World Order and all the other paranoid delights that have made those radio people into wealthy parasites and the rest of you into the most laughable suckers on the planet?

Are you all happy now?

People working for the Bureau Of Land Management are getting shot. It has cascaded, as most forms of madness do, from the weaponized performance art of the Bundy Ranch to threats along the highways of Utah that were so severe that the BLM people took the insignia off their uniforms, to this guy, Brent Douglas Cole, who shot a BLM agent and a Nevada highway patrolman, and who apparently is something of a lifer at the gun-crazy crackpot business.

Cole, according to The Union in Nevada City, has had numerous run-ins with law enforcement, including several other weapons-related incidents. The most recent of these occurred on Jan. 26, when he was arrested by Nevada County sheriff's deputies and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Cole also has a history of indulging in far-right conspiracies on the Internet. At one site, he described himself as a "sovereign American Citizen attempting to thwart the obvious conspiracy and subterfuges of powers inimical to the United States." On his Facebook page, he has posted a number of conspiracy-related stories, including pieces describing the so-called "Bilderburger conspiracy" to control the world and various "Federal Reserve" conspiracy pieces. Likewise, his Twitter account is full of posts with a similar conspiracist bent.

Can't imagine where he picked up all those notions.

The conservative movement in this country has spent the last two decades empowering the polite corridors of Bedlam while winking suggestively at all the denizens of the Chronic ward. This flirtation becomes more vigorous every time a Democratic president gets elected and it's been positively lascivious since the inauguration of this particular Democratic president in 2009. (Ooh, I know why! Call on me!) Just yesterday, we had a report about a conference co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation at which all manner of conspiratorial lunacy was let fly, and all of it was no more or less nutty than what Mr. Cole there spouted onto social media. It is time (again) for the Republican party, and for anyone who pretends to be a respectable conservative, to run these people and their ideas out of American conservatism. It took only a couple of wingnut senators shouting "Boo!" to get Democratic politicians to sell out ACORN or Move On. It is time for the political elite in the country to force the choice, once and for all. It is time for the people who care about this country to shun these people, and the politicians who empower them, and the media superstars who pander to their worst instincts, and to the political ideas that have proven themselves to be, over and over again, the most dangerous in the country's history. It's time for Boehner, and Priebus, and entire Republican political apparatus publicly to renounce secessionism, and nullification, and the idea that we are now -- or are dangerously on the brink of—tyranny, if the word has any meaning at all. That means reading the people who promote this stuff out of your party, whether they are members of Congress or state legislators, or members of the state and national committees. That means depriving of your presence any media member who trafficks in this perilous foolishness, and punishing those Republicans who decline to do the same.

Or you can be the party of sedition and cop-killing.

Your choice.

Clock's ticking.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Iraq Is "Going Well" Despite Neocon Panic Mongers for More War Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 18 June 2014 11:50

Boardman writes: "At best, Paul Bremer is an incompetent nitwit who bears heavy responsibility for the crushing horrors the U.S. has inflicted on Iraq since 2003. At worst, he is a war profiteer, or a war criminal, or both."

Masoud Ali and his family in Erbril where they fled from Mosul. Ali, like most residents of Mosul, is also a Sunni. He had heard the mayor calling for the citizens of Mosul to defend themselves against ISIS.
Masoud Ali and his family in Erbril where they fled from Mosul. Ali, like most residents of Mosul, is also a Sunni. He had heard the mayor calling for the citizens of Mosul to defend themselves against ISIS. "But why should I have defended myself?" he asks. "For the Shiite government? For Prime Minister Maliki, who oppresses the Sunnis?" He shakes his head. "The conflict has escalated because people in Iraq don't like the government anymore." (photo: Katrin Kuntz/Der Spiegel)


Iraq Is "Going Well" Despite Neocon Panic Mongers for More War

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

18 June 14

 

“Only the Americans can help the Iraqis….”
– Paul Bremer, June 16, 2014

eally?

Really?!

That sounds like American exceptionalism in its pathological form. That’s largely because it IS American exceptionalism in its most arrogant, pathological form.

Remember L. Paul Bremer, now 73, the Bush family caporegime who was the occupation’s Presidential Envoy to Iraq? He was the American Saddam Hussein in 2003 when he had near-dictatorial power and thought it would be a good idea to get rid of virtually every experienced Sunni military officer and every high-ranking Sunni government official so that, as President Bush put it over and over, “as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down” (never mind we just cut off their legs).

At best, Paul Bremer is an incompetent nitwit who bears heavy responsibility for the crushing horrors the U.S. has inflicted on Iraq since 2003. At worst, he is a war profiteer, or a war criminal, or both. Whatever he is, he lives in a country that will never hold him accountable.

On the contrary, he gets to go on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and spout self-serving, unchallenged nonsense. It’s like treating General Custer as an expert on fighting ethnic insurgencies. Bremer has a record. He’s a loser, like the rest of the Bush-era war council and their neocon camp followers. But like so many with blood on their hands, he still gets a public forum to say stuff like this, which is all pretty much mainstream, inside-the-beltway, received wisdom for dummies:

I’m not in favor of sending combat forces into Iraq at the moment, but I can well imagine that we would have to have some troops on the ground….

Dividing Iraq up as a policy involves the provocation of a regional war — basically, an Iraqi civil war becoming a regional war. It’s a very bad outcome…. So, if our interests are that broad, we should not be ruling things out….

Only the Americans can help the Iraqis broker across these sectarian and ethnic lines. There is nobody else who can do it.

Unindicted co-conspirators see nothing wrong with what they did

Since this was on “Morning Joe,” Bremer was treated as if he deserved respect by the co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, each of whom has serious conflicts of interest when it comes to Iraq. Scarborough was a major media warmonger in 2002-03, given to ad hominem gloating after the first month of the war (promoted by MSNBC). Brzezinski seems to have a lower profile as regards Iraq, even getting headlines for “sparring” with John McCain recently, which hardly addresses why McCain would be a guest after more than a decade of being wrong about Iraq. Nobody mentions the ghost in this mix, that Brzezinski’s father was an architect of arming and enabling Osama bin Laden and the rest of the mujaheddin as a clever Cold War manipulation, now in its fourth decade of blowback.

When Bremer (or anyone else) says he doesn’t favor combat troops now, but thinks it might be a good idea in some undefined future, he gets it totally wrong. First, he ignores the reality that the fantasy of combat troops being greeted as liberators was dumb in 2003, but now it’s perverse. Even militarily (not politically or strategically), the best moment for anyone’s combat troops to block the current Sunni advance has passed (and that’s assuming there was EVER any serious threat to Baghdad, a threat that never seemed credible, but made for good fearmongering).

When Bremer says dividing Iraq risks a civil war becoming a regional war, he has it backwards and inside out. Arguably the Sunni advance IS part of the regional war already in its seventh on-and-off decade, and it’s melding with the civil war the Bremeristas unleashed in 2003. Bremer is right, that this is a bad outcome, but he should have thought of that in 2002, when Iraq was stable. After all, if a stable Iraq is in American interests, why destabilize it? Just because “he tried to kill my dad” is a form of medieval revenge-thinking with modern weapons of mass destruction (ours).

When Bremer says, “Only the Americans can help the Iraqis broker across these sectarian and ethnic lines. There is nobody else who can do it” – that SHOULD get at least two big laughs.

Americans, led by Bremer, had the better part of a decade to take an already integrated Iraq and improve it. They failed. They failed utterly, horribly, at great cost of human life, but no apparent cost to self-esteem. The Bremeristas couldn’t even get their hand-nurtured Iraqi government to agree to leave American troops in the country (not that that was a good idea). Now they blame their failure on the Obama administration. They supported Nouri al-Maliki as Iraq’s Premier. Maliki has long been a Shiite pawn of Iran, Maliki put himself in charge of the secret police, now the Sunnis and Kurds seem to have had enough – and what’s unexpected about that?

Saving Iraq is different from saving face for Bush-Cheney thugs

Iraq has never been a real country in modern times. Historically, the region is “the cradle of civilization,” which mean that for thousands of years it either spawned empires or was over-run by competing empires, the last of which was the British Empire, that took over for the Ottoman Turks after World War I. The British mandate eventually led to a kingdom of Iraq that became a republic, which is what Saddam ran. During most of that time, roughly 1920-2002, Iraq was probably a more functional state than Mississippi, despite comparable levels of ethnic diversity and official violence.

Like so many borders in the Middle East, the borders of Iraq have little to do with the people living on the ground that those borderlines control. Iraq was more integrated under Saddam, before the vicious ethnic cleansing unleashed by the American occupation broke a civilized society down. But the underlying ethnic areas of Iraq have been in place for a long time (even Joe Biden figured that out, so of course the neocons mock him for having noticed reality).

“Iraq is not a real country and it never has been,” said former Vermont governor Howard Dean on MSNBC’s “The Last Word” (June 16). He said he’d predicted the obvious split along the obvious ethnic/sectarian lines ten years ago. And then he made a prediction: “Now that it’s happened, we’re not going back” (and by we, he presumably meant the Iraqis, too).

And that seems about right, as long as forces outside Iraq (and inside) allow it to happen. As the Roman general Julius Caesar once said of Gaul, and which could apply here: “All Iraq is divided into three parts.” And that’s what the forces on the ground have presently established.

Kurdistan, Baghdadistan, and Jihadistan – United States of Iraq?

Kurdistan in the northeast of Iraq is well-established as a semi-autonomous region, and has been at least since the Clinton administration’s no-fly zone limited Saddam’s control in the 1990s. With Kirkuk in Kurdish control now, the Kurds already have a share of Iraq’s oil.

Southern Iraq, from Baghdad to the Persian Gulf, has an overwhelmingly Shiite population and is also oil rich. The region is something of an Iranian protectorate. If the Maliki government can control the forces seeking to re-capture the rest of Iraq, there’s little reason this area, maybe call it Baghdadistan, can’t be a functional state.

That leaves the northwestern part of Iraq, which is being reported and talked about as if it were, almost literally, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). That is an illusion, and probably a deliberate deception by those who demonize ISIS as part of their pitch for a new American war. For want of a better term, we’ll call the ISIS area Jihadistan, which it is at least in part.

Jihadistan is populated by Sunnis mostly, whether they’re Sunni tribes or Sunni survivors of the Saddam regime (Bremer’s rejects in 2003, still ungrateful – imagine!), and assorted foreign fighters, as well as the ISIS gang, which probably includes some of all of the above, but itself numbers only about 3,000 active forces, according to several accounts. What most people in Jihadistan seem to have in common is a distinct distaste, dislike, distrust of the dictatorial Maliki regime in Baghdadistan.

So maybe it’s NOT about what the USA should do to other countries

The best thing about tripartite Iraq, as it has come to exist in June 2014, is that it has been imposed by no identifiable outside government – not the United States, not Iran, certainly not Turkey, even less Europe or Russia, not even the Chinese, who buy most of Iraq’s oil and have a pretty big stake in functional Iraqi stability. One might argue that the present condition of Iraq represents a rough, natural, geo-political equilibrium that all sides have some incentive to maintain.

It would be a triumph of human nature for some sort of rational balance to be maintained, so it’s not to be expected.

But the odds go up the faster beltway blowhards get shut down, which might happen faster if we had a president who wanted to do something to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Or if Hillary Clinton figures out that voting for a murderous $3 trillion war really wasn’t the best way to “support the troops.” Lacking the humility to acknowledge their official malfeasance, the least the Iraq War perpetrators can do is shut up.

Put a sock in it,” as the Mayor of London recently advised another war-criminal-in-waiting, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair – “paper bag over head time.”

When there’s nothing worth doing, then it’s worth doing nothing.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 Next > End >>

Page 2817 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN