Tweet
The Destruction and Political Fragmentation of Iraq.
Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham: An instrument of the Western
Military Alliance
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
June 14, 2014 "ICH " - "GR"
- - The Western media in chorus have described the unfolding conflict in
Iraq as a "civil war" opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham against
the Armed forces of the Al-Maliki government.
(Also referred to as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS))
The conflict is casually described as "sectarian warfare" between Radical
Sunni and Shia without addressing "who is behind the various factions". What
is at stake is a carefully staged US military-intelligence agenda.
Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by
US-NATO in numerous conflicts as "intelligence assets" since the heyday of
the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the
foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls
the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.
The Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) re-emerged in April
2013 with a different name and acronym, commonly referred to as the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The formation of a terrorist entity
encompassing both Iraq and Syria was part of a US intelligence agenda. It
responded to geopolitical objectives. It also coincided with the advances
of Syrian government forces against the US sponsored insurgency in Syria
and the failures of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various
"opposition" terror brigades.
The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in
favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which
has logistical bases in both countries. The ISIS Sunni caliphate project
coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria
into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia
Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.
Whereas the (US proxy) government in Baghdad purchases advanced weapons
systems from the US including F16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the
Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham -which is fighting Iraqi government
forces- is supported covertly by Western intelligence. The objective is to
engineer a civil war in Iraq, in which both sides are controlled indirectly
by US-NATO.
The scenario is to arm and equip them, on both sides, finance them with
advanced weapons systems and then "let them fight".
US-NATO is involved in the recruitment, training and financing of ISIS
death squads operating in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS operates through
indirect channels in liaison with Western intelligence. In turn,
corroborated by reports on Syria's insurgency, Western special forces and
mercenaries integrate the ranks of ISIS.
US-NATO support to ISIS is channeled covertly through America's staunchest
allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. According to London's Daily Express "They
had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia."
"through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported
militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other
al-Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
While the media acknowledges that the government of Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting ISIS, it
invariably fails to mention that both Doha and Riyadh are acting on behalf
and in close liaison with Washington.
Under the banner of a civil war, an undercover war of aggression is being
fought which essentially contributes to further destroying an entire
country, its institutions, its economy. The undercover operation is part of
an intelligence agenda, an engineered process which consists in
transforming Iraq into an open territory.
Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that what is at stake is
confrontation between Shia and Sunni.
America's military occupation of Iraq has been replaced by non-conventional
forms of warfare. Realities are blurred. In a bitter irony, the aggressor
nation is portrayed as coming to the rescue of a "sovereign Iraq".
An internal "civil war" between Shia and Sunni is fomented by US-NATO
support to both the Al-Maliki government as well as to the Sunni ISIS
rebels.
The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is longstanding policy of the US
and its allies.
"Supporting both Sides"
The "War on Terrorism" consists in creating Al Qaeda terrorist entities as
part of an intelligence operation, as well as also coming to the rescue of
governments which are the target of the terrorist insurgency. This process
is carried out under the banner of counter-terrorism. It creates the
pretext to intervene.
ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a
project of the Sunni population of Iraq which is broadly committed to a
secular forms of government. The caliphate project is part of a US
intelligence operation.
In response to the advance of the ISIS rebels, Washington is envisaging the
use of aerial bombings as well as drone attacks in support of the Baghdad
government as part of a counter-terrorism operation. It is all for a good
cause: to fight the terrorists, without of course acknowledging that these
terrorists are the "foot soldiers" of the Western military alliance.
Needless to say, these developments contribute not only to destabilizing
Iraq, but also to weakening the Iraqi resistance movement, which is one of
major objectives of US-NATO.
The Islamic caliphate is supported covertly by the CIA in liaison with
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence. Israel is also involved in
channeling support to both Al Qaeda rebels in Syria (out of the Golan
Heights) as well to the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria and Iraq.
More broadly, the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) encompasses a consistent
and diabolical logic: both sides -namely the terrorists and the government-
are supported by the same military and intelligence actors, namely US-NATO.
While this pattern describes the current situation in Iraq, the structure
of "supporting both sides" with a view to engineering sectarian conflict
has been implemented time and again in numerous countries. Insurgencies
integrated by Al Qaeda operatives (and supported by Western intelligence)
prevail in a large number of countries including Yemen, Libya, Nigeria,
Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Pakistan. The endgame is to
destabilize sovereign nation states and to transform countries into open
territories (on behalf of so-called foreign investors).
The pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds (e.g. in Mali, Nigeria or
the Central African Republic) is predicated on the existence of terrorist
forces. Yet these terrorist forces would not exist without covert US-NATO
support.
The Capture of Mosul: US-NATO Covert Support to the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (ISIS)
Something unusual occurred in Mosul which cannot be explained in strictly
military terms.
On June 10, the insurgent forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIS) captured Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, with a population
of close to 1.5 million people. While these developments were "unexpected"
according to the Obama administration, they were known to the Pentagon and
US intelligence, which were not only providing weapons, logistics and
financial support to the ISIS rebels, they were also coordinating, behind
the scenes, the ISIS attack on the city of Mosul.
While ISIS is a well equipped and disciplined rebel army when compared to
other Al Qaeda affiliated formations, the capture of Mosul, did not hinge
upon ISIS's military capabilities. Quite the opposite: Iraqi forces which
outnumbered the rebels by far, equipped with advanced weapons systems could
have easily repelled the ISIS rebels.
There were 30,000 government forces in Mosul as opposed to 1000 ISIS
rebels, according to reports. The Iraqi army chose not to intervene. The
media reports explained without evidence that the decision of the Iraqi
armed forces not to intervene was spontaneous characterized by mass
defections.
Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers -
roughly 30,000 men - simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an
insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on
Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with
which they took Iraq's second largest city after three days of sporadic
fighting. (Guardian, June 12, 2014, emphasis added)
The reports point to the fact that Iraqi military commanders were
sympathetic with the Sunni led ISIS insurgency:
Speaking from the Kurdish city of Erbil, the defectors accused their
officers of cowardice and betrayal, saying generals in Mosul "handed over"
the city over to Sunni insurgents, with whom they shared sectarian and
historical ties. (Daily Telegraph
,
13 June 2014)
What is important to understand, is that both sides, namely the regular
Iraqi forces and the ISIS rebel army are supported by US-NATO. There were
US military advisers and special forces including operatives from private
military companies on location in Mosul working with Iraq's regular armed
forces. In turn, there are Western special forces or mercenaries within
ISIS (acting on contract to the CIA or the Pentagon) who are in liaison
with US-NATO (e.g. through satellite phones).
Under these circumstances, with US intelligence amply involved, there would
have been routine communication, coordination, logistics and exchange of
intelligence between a US-NATO military and intelligence command center,
US-NATO military advisers forces or private military contractors on the
ground assigned to the Iraqi Army and Western special forces attached to
the ISIS brigades. These Western special forces operating covertly within
the ISIS could have been dispatched by a private security company on
contract to US-NATO.
In this regard, the capture of Mosul appears to have been a carefully
engineered operation, planned well in advance. With the exception of a few
skirmishes, no fighting took place.
Entire divisions of the Iraqi National Army -trained by the US military
with advanced weapons systems at their disposal- could have easily repelled
the ISIS rebels. Reports suggest that they were ordered by their commanders
not to intervene. According to witnesses, "Not a single shot was fired".
The forces that had been in Mosul have fled -- some of which abandoned their
uniforms as well as their posts as the ISIS forces swarmed into the city.
Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda
offshoot, overran the entire western bank of the city overnight after Iraqi
soldiers and police apparently fled their posts, in some instances
discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the
militants.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/10/mosul-falls-to-al-qaeda-as-us-trained-security-forces-flee/
A contingent of one thousand ISIS rebels take over a city of more than one
million? Without prior knowledge that the US controlled Iraqi Army (30,000
strong) would not intervene, the Mosul operation would have fallen flat,
the rebels would have been decimated.
Who was behind the decision to let the ISIS terrorists take control of
Mosul?
Had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military
advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?
Source: The Economist
Was the handing over of Mosul to ISIS part of a US intelligence agenda?
Were the Iraqi military commanders manipulated or paid off into allowing
the city to fall into the hands of the ISIS rebels without "a single shot
being fired".
Shiite General Mehdi Sabih al-Gharawi who was in charge of the Mosul Army
divisions "had left the city". Al Gharawi had worked hand in glove with the
US military. He took over the command of Mosul in September 2011, from US
Col Scott McKean. Had he been co-opted, instructed by his US counterparts
to abandon his command?
(image left) U.S. Army Col. Scott McKean, right, commander, 4th Advise and
Assist Brigade, 1st Armored Division, talks with Iraqi police Maj. Gen.
Mahdi Sabih al-Gharawi following a transfer of authority ceremony on
September 4, 2011
US forces could have intervened. They had been instructed to let it happen.
It was part of a carefully planned agenda to facilitate the advance of the
ISIS rebel forces and the installation of the ISIS caliphate.
The whole operation appears to have been carefully staged.
In Mosul, government buildings, police stations, schools, hospitals, etc
are formally now under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS). In turn, ISIS has taken control of military hardware including
helicopters and tanks which were abandoned by the Iraqi armed forces.
What is unfolding is the installation of a US sponsored Islamist ISIS
caliphate alongside the rapid demise of the Baghdad government. Meanwhile,
the Northern Kurdistan region has de facto declared its independence from
Baghdad. Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces (which are supported by Israel)
have taken control of the cities of Arbil and Kirkuk. (See map above)
Concluding Remarks
There were no Al Qaeda rebels in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Moreover,
Al Qaeda was non-existent in Syria until the outset of the US-NATO-Israeli
supported insurgency in March 2011.
The ISIS is not an independent entity. It is a creation of US intelligence.
It is a US intelligence asset, an instrument of non-conventional warfare.
The ultimate objective of this ongoing US-NATO engineered conflict opposing
Maliki government forces to the ISIS insurgency is to destroy and
destabilize Iraq as a Nation State. It is part of an intelligence
operation, an engineered process of transforming countries into
territories. The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is a longstanding
policy of the US and its allies.
The ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is
not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which historically has been
committed to a secular system of government. The caliphate project is a US
design. The advances of ISIS forces is intended to garnish broad support
within the Sunni population directed against the Al Maliki government
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing
board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader
conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of
the Al Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the
intervention of Iran.
The proposed redivision of Iraq is broadly modeled on that of the
Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven "independent states"
(Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia,
Montenegro, Kosovo).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three
separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the
Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was
published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired
colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel
Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been
used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military
officers". (SeePlans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New
Middle East"
ByMahdi Darius Nazemroaya
, Global
Research, November 2006)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38812.htm
Towards the Creation of a US Sponsored Islamist Caliphate
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham: An instrument of the Western
Military Alliance
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
June 14, 2014 "ICH " - "GR"
- - The Western media in chorus have described the unfolding conflict in
Iraq as a "civil war" opposing the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham against
the Armed forces of the Al-Maliki government.
(Also referred to as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS))
The conflict is casually described as "sectarian warfare" between Radical
Sunni and Shia without addressing "who is behind the various factions". What
is at stake is a carefully staged US military-intelligence agenda.
Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by
US-NATO in numerous conflicts as "intelligence assets" since the heyday of
the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the
foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which oversees and controls
the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.
The Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) re-emerged in April
2013 with a different name and acronym, commonly referred to as the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The formation of a terrorist entity
encompassing both Iraq and Syria was part of a US intelligence agenda. It
responded to geopolitical objectives. It also coincided with the advances
of Syrian government forces against the US sponsored insurgency in Syria
and the failures of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various
"opposition" terror brigades.
The decision was taken by Washington to channel its support (covertly) in
favor of a terrorist entity which operates in both Syria and Iraq and which
has logistical bases in both countries. The ISIS Sunni caliphate project
coincides with a longstanding US agenda to carve up both Iraq and Syria
into three separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia
Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.
Whereas the (US proxy) government in Baghdad purchases advanced weapons
systems from the US including F16 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the
Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham -which is fighting Iraqi government
forces- is supported covertly by Western intelligence. The objective is to
engineer a civil war in Iraq, in which both sides are controlled indirectly
by US-NATO.
The scenario is to arm and equip them, on both sides, finance them with
advanced weapons systems and then "let them fight".
US-NATO is involved in the recruitment, training and financing of ISIS
death squads operating in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS operates through
indirect channels in liaison with Western intelligence. In turn,
corroborated by reports on Syria's insurgency, Western special forces and
mercenaries integrate the ranks of ISIS.
US-NATO support to ISIS is channeled covertly through America's staunchest
allies: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. According to London's Daily Express "They
had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia."
"through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West [has] supported
militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other
al-Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
While the media acknowledges that the government of Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of supporting ISIS, it
invariably fails to mention that both Doha and Riyadh are acting on behalf
and in close liaison with Washington.
Under the banner of a civil war, an undercover war of aggression is being
fought which essentially contributes to further destroying an entire
country, its institutions, its economy. The undercover operation is part of
an intelligence agenda, an engineered process which consists in
transforming Iraq into an open territory.
Meanwhile, public opinion is led to believe that what is at stake is
confrontation between Shia and Sunni.
America's military occupation of Iraq has been replaced by non-conventional
forms of warfare. Realities are blurred. In a bitter irony, the aggressor
nation is portrayed as coming to the rescue of a "sovereign Iraq".
An internal "civil war" between Shia and Sunni is fomented by US-NATO
support to both the Al-Maliki government as well as to the Sunni ISIS
rebels.
The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is longstanding policy of the US
and its allies.
"Supporting both Sides"
The "War on Terrorism" consists in creating Al Qaeda terrorist entities as
part of an intelligence operation, as well as also coming to the rescue of
governments which are the target of the terrorist insurgency. This process
is carried out under the banner of counter-terrorism. It creates the
pretext to intervene.
ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is not a
project of the Sunni population of Iraq which is broadly committed to a
secular forms of government. The caliphate project is part of a US
intelligence operation.
In response to the advance of the ISIS rebels, Washington is envisaging the
use of aerial bombings as well as drone attacks in support of the Baghdad
government as part of a counter-terrorism operation. It is all for a good
cause: to fight the terrorists, without of course acknowledging that these
terrorists are the "foot soldiers" of the Western military alliance.
Needless to say, these developments contribute not only to destabilizing
Iraq, but also to weakening the Iraqi resistance movement, which is one of
major objectives of US-NATO.
The Islamic caliphate is supported covertly by the CIA in liaison with
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence. Israel is also involved in
channeling support to both Al Qaeda rebels in Syria (out of the Golan
Heights) as well to the Kurdish separatist movement in Syria and Iraq.
More broadly, the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) encompasses a consistent
and diabolical logic: both sides -namely the terrorists and the government-
are supported by the same military and intelligence actors, namely US-NATO.
While this pattern describes the current situation in Iraq, the structure
of "supporting both sides" with a view to engineering sectarian conflict
has been implemented time and again in numerous countries. Insurgencies
integrated by Al Qaeda operatives (and supported by Western intelligence)
prevail in a large number of countries including Yemen, Libya, Nigeria,
Somalia, Mali, the Central African Republic, Pakistan. The endgame is to
destabilize sovereign nation states and to transform countries into open
territories (on behalf of so-called foreign investors).
The pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds (e.g. in Mali, Nigeria or
the Central African Republic) is predicated on the existence of terrorist
forces. Yet these terrorist forces would not exist without covert US-NATO
support.
The Capture of Mosul: US-NATO Covert Support to the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (ISIS)
Something unusual occurred in Mosul which cannot be explained in strictly
military terms.
On June 10, the insurgent forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIS) captured Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, with a population
of close to 1.5 million people. While these developments were "unexpected"
according to the Obama administration, they were known to the Pentagon and
US intelligence, which were not only providing weapons, logistics and
financial support to the ISIS rebels, they were also coordinating, behind
the scenes, the ISIS attack on the city of Mosul.
While ISIS is a well equipped and disciplined rebel army when compared to
other Al Qaeda affiliated formations, the capture of Mosul, did not hinge
upon ISIS's military capabilities. Quite the opposite: Iraqi forces which
outnumbered the rebels by far, equipped with advanced weapons systems could
have easily repelled the ISIS rebels.
There were 30,000 government forces in Mosul as opposed to 1000 ISIS
rebels, according to reports. The Iraqi army chose not to intervene. The
media reports explained without evidence that the decision of the Iraqi
armed forces not to intervene was spontaneous characterized by mass
defections.
Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers -
roughly 30,000 men - simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an
insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on
Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with
which they took Iraq's second largest city after three days of sporadic
fighting. (Guardian, June 12, 2014, emphasis added)
The reports point to the fact that Iraqi military commanders were
sympathetic with the Sunni led ISIS insurgency:
Speaking from the Kurdish city of Erbil, the defectors accused their
officers of cowardice and betrayal, saying generals in Mosul "handed over"
the city over to Sunni insurgents, with whom they shared sectarian and
historical ties. (Daily Telegraph
,
13 June 2014)
What is important to understand, is that both sides, namely the regular
Iraqi forces and the ISIS rebel army are supported by US-NATO. There were
US military advisers and special forces including operatives from private
military companies on location in Mosul working with Iraq's regular armed
forces. In turn, there are Western special forces or mercenaries within
ISIS (acting on contract to the CIA or the Pentagon) who are in liaison
with US-NATO (e.g. through satellite phones).
Under these circumstances, with US intelligence amply involved, there would
have been routine communication, coordination, logistics and exchange of
intelligence between a US-NATO military and intelligence command center,
US-NATO military advisers forces or private military contractors on the
ground assigned to the Iraqi Army and Western special forces attached to
the ISIS brigades. These Western special forces operating covertly within
the ISIS could have been dispatched by a private security company on
contract to US-NATO.
In this regard, the capture of Mosul appears to have been a carefully
engineered operation, planned well in advance. With the exception of a few
skirmishes, no fighting took place.
Entire divisions of the Iraqi National Army -trained by the US military
with advanced weapons systems at their disposal- could have easily repelled
the ISIS rebels. Reports suggest that they were ordered by their commanders
not to intervene. According to witnesses, "Not a single shot was fired".
The forces that had been in Mosul have fled -- some of which abandoned their
uniforms as well as their posts as the ISIS forces swarmed into the city.
Fighters with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-Qaeda
offshoot, overran the entire western bank of the city overnight after Iraqi
soldiers and police apparently fled their posts, in some instances
discarding their uniforms as they sought to escape the advance of the
militants.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/10/mosul-falls-to-al-qaeda-as-us-trained-security-forces-flee/
A contingent of one thousand ISIS rebels take over a city of more than one
million? Without prior knowledge that the US controlled Iraqi Army (30,000
strong) would not intervene, the Mosul operation would have fallen flat,
the rebels would have been decimated.
Who was behind the decision to let the ISIS terrorists take control of
Mosul?
Had the senior Iraqi commanders been instructed by their Western military
advisers to hand over the city to the ISIS terrorists? Were they co-opted?
Source: The Economist
Was the handing over of Mosul to ISIS part of a US intelligence agenda?
Were the Iraqi military commanders manipulated or paid off into allowing
the city to fall into the hands of the ISIS rebels without "a single shot
being fired".
Shiite General Mehdi Sabih al-Gharawi who was in charge of the Mosul Army
divisions "had left the city". Al Gharawi had worked hand in glove with the
US military. He took over the command of Mosul in September 2011, from US
Col Scott McKean. Had he been co-opted, instructed by his US counterparts
to abandon his command?
(image left) U.S. Army Col. Scott McKean, right, commander, 4th Advise and
Assist Brigade, 1st Armored Division, talks with Iraqi police Maj. Gen.
Mahdi Sabih al-Gharawi following a transfer of authority ceremony on
September 4, 2011
US forces could have intervened. They had been instructed to let it happen.
It was part of a carefully planned agenda to facilitate the advance of the
ISIS rebel forces and the installation of the ISIS caliphate.
The whole operation appears to have been carefully staged.
In Mosul, government buildings, police stations, schools, hospitals, etc
are formally now under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS). In turn, ISIS has taken control of military hardware including
helicopters and tanks which were abandoned by the Iraqi armed forces.
What is unfolding is the installation of a US sponsored Islamist ISIS
caliphate alongside the rapid demise of the Baghdad government. Meanwhile,
the Northern Kurdistan region has de facto declared its independence from
Baghdad. Kurdish peshmerga rebel forces (which are supported by Israel)
have taken control of the cities of Arbil and Kirkuk. (See map above)
Concluding Remarks
There were no Al Qaeda rebels in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Moreover,
Al Qaeda was non-existent in Syria until the outset of the US-NATO-Israeli
supported insurgency in March 2011.
The ISIS is not an independent entity. It is a creation of US intelligence.
It is a US intelligence asset, an instrument of non-conventional warfare.
The ultimate objective of this ongoing US-NATO engineered conflict opposing
Maliki government forces to the ISIS insurgency is to destroy and
destabilize Iraq as a Nation State. It is part of an intelligence
operation, an engineered process of transforming countries into
territories. The break up of Iraq along sectarian lines is a longstanding
policy of the US and its allies.
The ISIS is a caliphate project of creating a Sunni Islamist state. It is
not a project of the Sunni population of Iraq which historically has been
committed to a secular system of government. The caliphate project is a US
design. The advances of ISIS forces is intended to garnish broad support
within the Sunni population directed against the Al Maliki government
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing
board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader
conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of
the Al Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the
intervention of Iran.
The proposed redivision of Iraq is broadly modeled on that of the
Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven "independent states"
(Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia,
Montenegro, Kosovo).
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three
separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the
Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was
published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired
colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel
Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been
used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military
officers". (SeePlans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New
Middle East"
ByMahdi Darius Nazemroaya
, Global
Research, November 2006)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38812.htm