Thursday, February 23, 2006

US Coalition Fiddling While Iraq Burns

Whenever any terrible crime happened in ancient Rome, without any immediately obvious perpetrator, the Roman citizenry used to ask the subtle question Cui Bono? - who benefits?

If Nero benefitted from the burning of Rome, so he could build his famous Golden House, who benefits from this terrible bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra?

If I was an American Neocon Nazi, I would be itching all over to get my stormtroopers into Iran. It's full of oil and other pelf which I could quartermaster out to my friends; it's full of enemies who need to be dealt a final solution; and when a final reckoning comes against either Russia or China, it forms, with Iraq and Afghanistan alongside it, a splendid triple-headed bulwark against both of the other major Asian powers. And you can't get a one world state ruled by Washington DC until you've dealt with those two monsters; the EU can come later, especially as we already have its most militarized member on board, as Oceanian sub-neocons.

We need to get Iran now because if we leave it too long, they'll get themselves a nuclear curtain like those damned Koreans.

So what do I need to take out Iran? Obviously, I need Iraq secured in all three of its Ottaman vilayets of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra - Thank you Dick.

The Kurds are running Mosul, we're running Baghdad, and the Brits are running Basra - Thank you Tony.

What else do we need? Obviously Afghanistan. We've pretty much got Kabul wrapped up and a tin-pot dictator in situ, but the south's proving a problem. When we invade Iran, we don't want to leave any back door open via the Herat corridor, so we need to bottle this up by ensuring the southern airbases are decently protected. Let's send in Tony's crack boys to secure this one; they're pretty good in a tight spot. We'll get him to pump out some cock and bull story about heroin; if anyone's stupid enough to believe that SAS troopers are needed to police a few farmers around Kandahar, we'll put them up as US presidential contenders.

Two more to go.

We need a ready-built insurgency to destabilize the mullahs, especially to act as a northern screen against the Ruskis. Easy. We just pump a few more Fed dollars into Mosul, plus a few more CIA special op teams, and we'll let the Kurds exact their revenge over the Persians, all the way to the Caspian sea.

One more to go.

We need a spark. And what better than to follow the master himself, who used a few of his own men to fake a Polish attack on that radio station at Gleiwitz to start World War II, shooting a few German convicts dressed as Poles to cement the excuse. If it was good enough for Adolf, it's surely good enough for us.

A few well-sited bombs could kick of the civil war we need, then the mullahs will pile in alongside their Shi-ite brothers and then we can let the bombers roll. Now what we need is something that's really going to incense the Shi-ites and get them to start slicing down Sunnis in the street. Has anyone got any semtex?

Ok, so I have absolutely no proof whatsoever that any of the above is true. But if I was such a neocon who wanted to invade Iran, then that would be my plan. As far as I can make out from this Golden Mosque bombing, nobody benefits but those who want a civil war in Iraq, more than likely followed by an especially uncivil war with Iran.

It's all going to be very bloody, particularly for the civilians; the bomber pilots at three miles up are going to be just dandy.

So what should the US coalition do? They should get their troops out of the region as soon as is physically possible. They were sent there on a Great Lie and if they don't come out right now, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of civilian bodies lying dead and dying in the streets. Thank you Dick and Tony.

2 comments:

Julius Blumfeld said...

Not sure I follow. Since the Iranians are shias,why would blowing up shia mosques cause Iraq (which is now on the way to becoming a Shia theocracy) to go to war with Iran (which already is a Shia theocracy)?

Also, doesn't civil war discredit the whole neocon rationale for the invasion (which can therefore hardly been in neocon interests)?

Jack Maturin said...

Blow up the Shia Mosque. Shias blame Sunnis. Shias start killing Sunnis. Sunnis, who were heavily armed by Saddam, start killing Shias, probably rather effectively. Iran wades in to defend Shias from Sunnis. US Coalition forced to defend Iraq, with permission of puppet Iraqi govt, from Iran, to stablize the situation. Neocon world view seen triumphant again (assuming no nuclear weapons go off), when 'peaceful' puppet governments set up in both Iraq and Iran.

Ok, it's a stretch for the neocons. But just like all socialists their 'paradigm' only works when the whole world is ruled by the neocons; destabilising outsiders cannot be tolerated. Plus, given that neoconservatism needs to invade Iran at some point, how else would you do it? You always need a pretext, just like Hitler with Poland. The UN won't go down the WMD road again, so this time they'll need some other pretext. What better pretext than the need to stabilise a war-torn region. Just check out the Roman 'pacification' of Pontus, in modern Turkey, if you need a classical example of exactly the same tactic.

It's either that, or I've been reading too many Tom Clancy and Frederick Forsyth novels, recently! :-)