Neocon Advocates Civil War in Iraq as “Strategic” Policy
Commentary and review by David Duke
As my listeners and readers know, I have been saying for quite a while that Israel and the Jewish Neocons want a destabilized Iraq even if it harms American objectives there and even if it furthers terrorism against Americans around the world. The Zionists don’t want a pro-Iran, united Iraqi regime to emerge from the occupation, for that runs counter to Israeli strategic interests.
At the same time, increased terrorism against America and the West emanating from a destabilized Iraq will continue to create a climate where Israel will be supported as an “anti-terrorist ally.” In Lebanon Israel did everything it could to foment civil war between Christians and Muslims, even going so far as to facilitate the Sabre and Shatila massacre of over 1200 Palestinians. I suspect that Israel’s Mossad was behind the recent bombing of the one of the holiest sites in Iraq, the Askariya shrine, and is doing everything it can to engender sectarian strife in Iraq.
Now a new article on CounterPunch discusses the Neocon agenda on behalf of an Iraqi Civil War.
Neocon Advocates Civil War in Iraq as “Strategic” Policy
Daniel Pipes Finds Comfort in Muslims Killing Muslims
By JOHN WALSH
Here is a quote from the article:
One of the abiding myths about the War on Iraq is that the Neocons were too stupid to realize that they would confront an unrelenting, indigenous resistance to their occupation of Iraq. Unwittingly, the story line goes, they led the U.S. into a conflict which has now produced a civil war. But this simply does not fit the facts. The Neocons clearly anticipated such an outcome before they launched their war as Stephen Zunes documents in Antiwar.com:
“Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war’s intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be “ripped apart” by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to “expedite” such a collapse anyway.”
Yet the line persists that the Neocons had no idea what they were getting into. This cannot be correct as they think a lot about what they do and they plan carefully. Not only is that charge absurd on the face of it, but it is arrogant on the part of those who level it. And it is the worst political mistake possible underestimating your adversary.
Now the Neocons are beginning to advocate for civil war in Iraq quite openly. The clearest statement of this strategy as yet comes from pre-eminent Neocon and ardent Zionist Daniel Pipes. In a recent piece in the Jerusalem Post, Pipes spills the beans. He writes:
“The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy. Iraq’s plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West. Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility, nor its burden. When Sunni terrorists target Shi’ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one.”
As ever Pipes’s anti-Arab racism is simply too rabid to be hidden. If Muslims are busy killing other Muslims, then “non-Muslims” are less likely to be hurt!! What does that say about Muslim lives? And of course both Sunnis and Shia must be labeled “terrorists.” Pipes is doing nothing more endorsing than the oldest of colonial strategies: Divide et impera.
Pipes envisions other “benefits” to the civil war “strategy,” such as inhibiting the spread of democracy in the Middle East. Pipes again:
“Civil war will “terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This would have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.”
Read the rest of the article at the following link: Neocon Advocates Civil War in Iraq as “Strategic” Policy
Reading the article I am reminded of Neocon strategist, Stephen Steinlight, former head of National Affairs for the American Jewish Committee (the largest Jewish organization in the United States) and what he wrote about Jewish strategy for dominating the policies of the United States government:
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agenda.
In the article, Steinlight, also talks about the dangers to Jewish power from American election reform . Real democracy is a danger to Jewish hegemony in elections where Jewish special interest money is disallowed. In truth, they don’t want real democracy in Iraq, the Mideast, or in any nation, least of all in the United States.
Yes, they want to divide and conquer a potential rival, Iraq, regardless of the danger this poses to America. Of course they thoroughly led the push for the Iraq War in the first place, a war that only serves Israel and only hurts the security, economic and strategic interests of the United States. They also have been the architects of opening the borders of Europe and America to the Third World and increasing multiculturalism, a divided nation that they can, as Steinlight points out, “divide and conquer.” Read the article and gain some insight into the dynamics of Jewish supremacism –David Duke
