America bloodies Middle East

Photo: Reuters

Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, has now fallen to the ISIS (an acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Syria)) on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 along with three other cities in the northern part of Iraq including Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s birth place. The ISIS (it is also referred to as ISIL for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is an offshoot of al-Qaeda which joined the Syrian insurgency group some two years ago but now it is by far the largest group exerting total independence under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from al-Qaeda. Levant is the geographical region which covers most of Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan. Thus ISIS grand vision is to set up a Wahhabi (Sunni) State covering Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and possibly Israel. This vicious group, now a fully-fledged army, is even more ruthless than al-Qaeda in killing enemy soldiers as well as civilians in order to spread fear and terror along its way. In Mosul they beheaded more than 20 Iraqi soldiers in full public view so as to spread terror among the Iraqi soldiers. This ISIS army is now triumphantly advancing towards Baghdad to overrun the capital of the country.

How did this vicious group arise in less than three years in the region which America poked some years ago and left shattered and burning? Did America inadvertently sow the Jihadi seed which flourished tremendously in their absence? Did America withdraw from Iraq leaving supposedly a fully functioning Iraqi government? American led coalition forces spent hundreds of billions of dollars over a period of eight years to rid Iraq of ‘weapons of mass destruction (WMD)’, ‘drive al-Qaeda out of the country’ and establish ‘democracy’ in the country! Were these the realistic goals and did America achieve any one of these goals or did they just run away in failure? I will cover all of these contentious and legitimate questions in turn.

On 20 March 2003, American led coalition forces invaded Iraq on the mendacious claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which he could possibly use not only to attack America’s allies in Europe but also to attack American Eastern Seaboard using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). A totally fictitious case was presented by the American to the UN Security Council to justify an attack on Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, notwithstanding the contention of Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector that Iraq does not seem to have any weapon of mass destruction. Without getting the UN authorisation, the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ under the aggressive leadership of America attacked Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein within a week and on 1st May, George W Bush declared triumphantly (and prematurely, if any) that the ‘Mission is Accomplished’.

After the removal of Saddam Hussein (and following the dismantling of civil and military administration), the UN inspectors went on scouring the country in search of any trace of WMD but all attempts ended in vain. It eventually transpired that a renegade Iraqi scientist who defected to the West lied to them by saying that Iraq possessed WMD. That lone confession of a liar seemed to be the main plank of the West’s precipitous action against a sovereign state of the UN. However, a senior CIA official who coordinated the US intelligence on the Middle East from 2000 to 2005 said that the failure to find the WMD in Iraq is less important than Saddam Hussein’s intent to develop such weapons! This is how America conducts its foreign policy!

What about Saddam Hussein’s association with the al-Qaeda before and after the 9/11 attack (in 2001) which shook America to the core and made it go completely berserk? If any leader anywhere who displayed visceral antipathy to al-Qaeda, that would be Saddam Hussein. When America was hobnobbing with Osama bin Laden in the 1980s during Russian occupation of Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein was shutting down al-Qaeda offices in Baghdad. After all, Saddam Hussein was renowned to be a ‘play boy’ of the East with secular outlook. Under his iron fist all religions (Muslims – Shia, Sunni and other denominations; Christians, Druze and so forth) coexisted amicably. So what credence could there be that Saddam Hussein conspired with al-Qaeda to carry out the 9/11 attack in America? The fact is that Iraq had no al-Qaeda association whatsoever at that time, but now after American misadventure there it is a haven for al-Qaeda. America has very effectively and successfully acted as a recruiting agent for al-Qaeda that spawned ISIS now.

With regard to democracy, one might ask what democracy America had in mind to offer to Iraq post Saddam Hussein? Did America think that democracy was like a commodity that could be sold to a country with an instruction book thrown-in and everything would be fine? How could the American form of democracy where money overrules everything and dictates the outcome of democracy suit a developing country like Iraq? Now what sort of democracy America had left behind such that the country is tearing itself apart by sectarian division and internecine conflict?

The misadventure in Iraq may be costly in terms of fatality of combat soldiers of the coalition forces — nearly 5,000 deaths and over 40,000 wounded in total. But that is nothing in comparison to the suffering of the Iraqi people – over 600,000 deaths (Lancet survey) and over 1.5 million wounded. More than 2.5 million men, women and children became refugees in neighbouring countries. The infrastructure of the country was totally ruined and racial and religious infighting has damaged the nation beyond repair.

Whereas Iraq had been massacred by the Americans, Syria had been savaged by American acquiescence to the rebels, holding the grand title of ‘Free Syrian Army (FSA)’. It beggars belief that America with its worldwide network of intelligence, satellite surveillance system etc. could not even find that the FSA was nothing but a coalition of al-Qaeda, foreign fighters and Jihadi organisations. Saudi money had been pouring in endlessly to follow the Wahhabi agenda and Jihadists had been fighting to set up a Sunni Islamic State sweeping away the Alawite tribe (of Shia sect) in Syria. America for over a year and half had been giving moral and material support to the rag-bag of Jihadi fighters which included al-Qaeda, America’s arch enemy. Last August America was on the verge of bombing out Bashar al-Assad on the pretext that he used chemical weapons against civilians and thereby install a Jihadi regime in Syria! Although there was no evidence that Assad regime used chemical weapons, it could very well be the rebels used it to apportion blame on Assad, America blamed Assad unequivocally. Only Russia steadfastly opposed at the United Nations any action against the Assad regime and arming the Jihadi army. When British Parliamentarians, after long and acrimonious debate, rejected the government motion to participate in the war against Syria, did America pull back from the precipitous action against Assad. Even then the damage inflicted by the Syrian rebels — the largest group is now the ISIS — on the country in the name of ‘freeing it’ is unimaginable.

As Syrian army regained some of the lost cities such as Homs and part of Aleppo, the rebel soldiers started to retreat. The ISIS fighters have largely withdrawn from Syria and regrouped across the northern part of Iraq and captured Mosul and other northern cities of Iraq. The death toll and suffering of the people are enormous. More than 250,000 people died in Syria so far, internally nearly 5 million people were displaced and over 3 million people sought refuge in the neighbouring countries.

Now although ISIS is racing towards Baghdad, America has categorically said that it will not put its soldiers on the ground to support Iraq. Barack Obama declares now that Iraq is a sovereign State with its own government and it is the responsibility of the government to protect the country. Wasn’t Iraq a sovereign State when America invaded? What right America had to invade Iraq at that time?

What is the ultimate goal of America in causing such inhuman sufferings to the people and damage to the countries in the Middle East? There are a number of conflicting lines of thought, but the most significant one is that America likes to see Middle East extremely weak and down on its knees. The only way to make Middle East down on its knees is to make them fight among themselves and bloody themselves, with occasional helping hand from America. After all, America and most of the world needs Middle Eastern oil and how best one can secure that oil if the owners are not left weak in their knees? The other line of thought is the international conspiracy between Wahhabi and Zionist groups. Wahhabis (from Saudi Arabia) would ensure that the enemies of the Jewish State such as Hezbollah and Shias in general are destroyed; Zionists in turn would ensure that Shias (including Shia State, Iran) are massacred anywhere in the world and thereby allow Wahhabism to flourish. Saudi Arabia will put money into this grand conspiracy and Zionists will help with technology, intelligence and media support. Of course, America would be the guardian of this venture and oversee the success of this project by bloodying Middle East except Saudi Arabia and the GCC States.

Source: Bd news24


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here