Forget the surge as primarily a gambit to give the Iraqi's breathing space to form a new government. That's what we in America wanted, but it was not necessarily what the Iraqis had in mind. They have already formed a new government and that fact, in and of itself, is not the most incredible revelation. What is unbelievable is that virtually no one in our government has noticed the new government in place - or so publicly acknowledge the fact to date. Should the reader find such an assertion not only astounding, but as I guess most will, unbelievable, consider the following:
What did the Iraqi council discuss for all of the months they were gathered in Baghdad, during a period of time bought and paid for in the currency of American blood? What ideas of their own did they have in mind before these meetings were held? But most of all, what conclusions and agreements did they come to afterwards, in private, as the result of those meetings? You will note that I stated 'afterwards', because it is quite clear from their present stance and their belligerent reactions to American pressure, that they have come to a conclusive state. And I should add, what are they now waiting for?
I cannot speculate on what conclusions they may have come to as a result of those long-drawn out meetings (so exhaustive they required a month long vacation in August), but I feel fairly safe and comfortable stating quite conclusively what they're waiting for. Having already made up their minds on how to redesign their country to their liking and cultural/politcal choice, they're simply marking time in place - waiting for the Americans to leave.
Will there be a bloodbath when this happens? Of course, but why should that be our concern? Our troops and generals have done the best they can, so why not let the Iraqis take it from here? Because, you see, this war was never really about 'democracy', and American corporate interests have no intention of leaving just yet: not completely.
Removing Saddam Hussein was a Mistake
By going into Iraq with insufficient troop strength necessary for occupation, America and the Bush administration has made it possible for the factions to do what the Saddam Hussein administration prevented them from doing for years - initiate the practice of ethnic cleansing upon themselves. Like it or not, Saddam was the Marshall Tito of the Middle East.
Both Tito and Hussein were men of their territory: each holding together a loose confederation of ethnic states united by a national flag, but in all other respects barely resembling a country. When Tito, the former ruler of Yugoslavia died, his domain broke down into some of the worst ethnic fighting this planet had ever witnessed in the twentieth century. It was during this period that the term 'ethnic cleansing' came into being.
Having such a vivid lesson taught should have widened our visionary horizons as to a possible outcome when we even thought of invading Iraq and,st of all, to the possible after effects of ousting the man who had managed to keep it together as a workable entity. As former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, did try to warn the Bush administration of the possible peril of such an action: as reported in Bob Woodward's book, "You break it,' Powell warned, "You own it!"
Against all sound experienced and knowledgeable advice, Bush broke it and now America owns it - lock, stock and almost 4000 dead Americans to date. And future history will vindicate suspicians as fact; the Iraq War has always been about oil - and nothing else.
Foreign Embassy or a New State Capital
If one didn't know better, it would be quite easy to imagine that we were preparing for the admission of a 51st state to the American union. However, many would be moved to speculate that Israel pretty much had that slot held at the ready, as a last ditch effort to save itself from possible extinction at the hands of its many regional enemies. Therefore, if such statehood considerations (as a possible 52nd state) were to be taken seriously, Iraq would appear to be the most likely candidate and beneficiary of the newest gargantuan undertaking in Baghdad.
The project in question is a massive project to build a U.S. Embassy compound, composed of 24 buildings on 104 acres (the approximate size of 80 football fields) inside the Baghdad Green Zone. And it has been reported from those who have viewed the construction plans in detail; the residence of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq will be 16,000 square feet. Meanwhile, the deputy chief of mission in Iraq will have to make do with a mere "cottage” measuring 9,500 square feet. In other words the biggest and most expensive embassy in the world is now under construction and due for completion in August.of 2008.
According to an article in the January 18, 2007 edition of the Capitol Weekly News, the office space available to our elected senators and representatives in Washington DC (both Republican and Democrat) comes out to a mean average of approximately 2249 square feet. Based upon this huge planned construction, the American ambassador to Iraq will have at his beck and call 7 times that area, and the deputy chief of mission will have 4 times the area.
The State Department has not budged from an original embassy price tag of $592 million - which was supposed to be a reasonably firm estimate. But Sen. Patrick Leahy (D- VT.) complained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of a "growing size in costs", and a staffing increase of more than 30 percent since Congress approved the State Department's plans two years ago. Leahy chairs the appropriations subcommittee in charge of the foreign operations budget.
"We have 1,000 Americans at the embassy in Baghdad," Leahy told Rice at a hearing. "You add the contractors and the local staff, it comes to 4,000 . . . a deviation from the plan that we'd agreed to." According to Senate staffers, estimated operating costs now total $1.2 billion a year, and how many are aware that the main defensive force guarding this fortress will most likely be a private American security company by the name of Blackwater USA?
Let's face it, taxpayers and fellow Americans, this is not an embassy in any real sense of the term or purpose: this is a fortified Corporate Headquarters Complex.
The What and Why of Blackwater USA
If there is one thing we know for certain, it is that the Iraqi government wants Blackwater USA out of their country. And the other salient fact is the U.S. State department wants them in. The question we must continually ask ourselves is why the state department so desperately wants to keep them there?
Blackwater USA activities in Iraq were effectively shielded from public scrutiny until 2004, when four of its employees were captured, killed and burned (at least one alive at the time) by a mob in the Sunni city of Fallujah was their general awareness of their existence or activities. Pictures of their charred bodies hanging from lamp posts led President Bush to order a Marine assault against the city. But what have they been up to since that time? It would appear from the now frequent reports coming in, their activities have been extensive as outlined by the following reported incident:
Blackwater Guards Killed 16 as U.S. Touted Progress
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
BAGHDAD — On Sept. 9, the day before Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told Congress that things were getting better, Batoul Mohammed Ali Hussein came to Baghdad for the day.
A clerk in the Iraqi customs office in Diyala province, she was in the capital to drop off and pick up paperwork at the central office near busy al Khilani Square, not far from the fortified Green Zone, where top U.S. and Iraqi officials live and work. U.S. officials often pass through the square in heavily guarded convoys on their way to other parts of Baghdad.
As Hussein walked out of the customs building, an embassy convoy of sport-utility vehicles drove through the intersection. Blackwater security guards, charged with protecting the diplomats, yelled at construction workers at an unfinished building to move back. Instead, the workers threw rocks. The guards, witnesses said, responded with gunfire, spraying the intersection with bullets.
Hussein, who was on the opposite side of the street from the construction site, fell to the ground, shot in the leg. As she struggled to her feet and took a step, eyewitnesses said, a Blackwater security guard trained his weapon on her and shot her multiple times. She died on the spot, and the customs documents she'd held in her arms fluttered down the street.
Before the shooting stopped, four other people were killed in what would be the beginning of eight days of violence that Iraqi officials say bolster their argument that Blackwater should be banned from working in Iraq.
During the ensuing week, as Crocker and Petraeus told Congress that the surge of more U.S. troops to Iraq was beginning to work and President Bush gave a televised address in which he said "ordinary life was beginning to return" to Baghdad, Blackwater security guards shot at least 43 people on crowded Baghdad streets. At least 16 of those people died.
Two Blackwater guards died in one of the incidents, which were triggered when a roadside bomb struck a Blackwater vehicle.
I have thoroughly researched the incident from several newspaper accounts as well as that reported by the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters News Agencies, and as detailed in the article above, the incident described - one of many - is essentially true. Blackwater USA is an evolving paramilitary force that has been deliberately set loose in Iraq, with specific emphasis on the Baghdad area. But the big question who controls them and what is their real purpose in Iraq?
Recent events and actions taken by the State department indicate that the company is not under any sort of control by the American Military establishment. And it should be noted that the military has not taken any steps to request control over this force - nor does it appear to want any sort of jurisdiction over them. This attitude alone should raise suspicions as to Blackwater's mission in this very perilous theater of war.
Blackwater USA is at present the largest State Department private security contractor - one of three - operating in Iraq. In fact, in its literature, the company touts itself as being the largest private professional military, security maintenance and peacekeeping company in the world. They claim to train over 40,000 people a year from various US military services and a significant number of unnamed services. At present a minimum of 90 percent of its revenue is derived from contracts with the U.S. State Department - the majority of which are no-bid contracts.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
At its complex in North Carolina, it has shooting ranges for high-powered weapons, buildings for simulating hostage rescue missions and a bunkhouse for trainees. The Blackwater installation is so modern and well-equipped that Navy Seals stationed at the Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base in Norfolk, Va., routinely use it, military officials said. So do police units from around the country, who come to Blackwater for specialized training.
Former Navy Seal Erik Prince, an attendee of the U.S. Naval Academy and a college graduate, founded Blackwater USA in 1998. He was an intern in President George H.Bush's White House and over the years, starting in 1998, has contributed in excess of $200,000 to the republican national Committee. He has also been known to support the candicies of many conservative politicians, including George W. Bush. And Prince also serves as an active board member of Christian Freedom International, a non-profit group that supplies Bibles, food and other assistance to Christians in other countries.
The company, headquartered on 7000 acres in Moyock North Carolina, is made up of at least ten divisions and subsidiaries - all military related. And by its own admission, runs one of the largest privately owned firearms training facilities in the world - and the company is rapidly growing.
As of November 2006 Blackwater USA acquired an 80-acre facility 150 miles west of Chicago, in the town of Mt. Carroll. Reportedly the new facility is referred to as Blackwater North and has been operational since April 2007, and is supposedly dedicated to the training of law enforcement agencies throughout the Midwest. And they are rumored to be engaged in the groundwork to open a new facility, somewhere in California, for the expressed purpose of training military and law enforcement personnel.
Take a minute to think about this far-reaching and evolving corporate entity, with "Major" security and paramilitary facilities in the north, west and south of this country. Since it is quite clear that under U.S. law there can be only 'one' recognized armed force, and taking into account that the Blackwater operation exceeds the size and armament capability of an allowable private militia, what we have in Blackwater USA is an unofficial military contingent without a country - as yet.
It should also be noted that, to date, no one knows the full extent of personnel staffing and facilities they have at their command, both around the world and within the U. S. So we are compelled to ask again, just what is Blackwater USA's mission in Iraq and, most importantly, who controls this very powerful private army?
A Deadly Game of Chess
I won't take the time to outline via a voluminous essay the possibilities and scenarios now playing out upon the world stage. But I will revealt to the reader what I personally see from my vantage point, and you make up your own mind as to possible outcomes:
Syria: The recent Israeli airstrike into Syria has embarrassed the Russians far more than the Syrians. The sophisticated air defense system supplied by the Russians had its ineffectiveness exposed to the entire world, including future systems clients of the Russians. Russian technicians are already in Syria examining the system for faults. This is very important to the power-building Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, who regards the Israelis as direct allies of the Americans.
North Korea: Did the North Koreans supply Syria with any nuclear material? Or were they simply trying to hide elements of their nuclear technology from a coming inspection by UN inspectors? And why have so many North Korean technical personnel arrived in Syria since the Israeli strike? Whatever the case, the action clearly highlighted a very close working tie between Syria and North Korea. And it is important to note that the scheduled North Korean nuclear inspection agreement appears to have - instantly stalled.
Pakistan: It should be noted that the Israelis are keeping a close eye on the Iranian nuclear program, and an even closer and very nervous eye on the Pakistan factor as well. If President Musharraf should fall and his government collapse into serious civic disarray, what factions will have control of its formidable nuclear arsenal? It has also been reported that the Pakistani intelligence service is keeping a close eye on the Israelis - being well aware of their penchant for preemptive strikes.
Iran: What are the Iranians up to? Knowing they will have to absorb and survive several days of intensive airstrikes should the Americans attack, what preparations have they made to protect their military infrastructure, and how will they respond to such an attack?
The Bush Administration: Have they given any thought of the outcome of such an attack on Iran, by themselves, the Israelis or in conjunction with the israelis? As a possible insight to American planning or lack thereof, I refer to excerpts from an article in the October 8, 2007 issue of the New Yorker magazine by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh entitled "Shifting Targets - The Administration's plan for Iran ":
"....The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq."
"....At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn't give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”
“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”
"....That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”
What is in the Mind of President George W. Bush?
It is clear from not only all that has taken place since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2002, compounded with what appears to be taking shape as unyielding American policy, that we are once again headed into the jaws of international disaster.
The President has requested a 2008 war budget of $190 billion dollars. Why? If all the given estimates, both Pentagon and General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates are correct, the Iraq War is costing America approximately $3 billion dollars a week in Iraq. Based upon the 52 weeks in a year, the 2008 estimate should round out to approximately $156 billion. So what is the remaining $34 billion for, the Afghanistan War? And if not then what?
This desperate yet powerful man in search of a legacy, at any cost, is an American national disaster masquerading as a United States President. And where he is about to take us in his last dwindling days at the helm may well be a quest to a final disaster. |