Zarqawi sought US-Iran War
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was hoping to provoke a US-Iran war as a way of bogging the Americans down further and defeating them in Iraq.
Remember all those times Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld came out and said they suspected that Shiite Iran was somehow aiding the Sunni Arab insurgency? You remember how baffled I was at this bizarre allegation? You wonder whether they were being fed disinformation by a Zarqawi agent, and falling for it.
After they fell for the biggest whoppers of the 21st century, as retailed by Ahmad Chalabi, have Bush administration officials been gullibly swallowing an al-Qaeda black psy-ops operation intended to mire US troops in the Dasht-i Kavir? For people who think of themselves as tough as nails hardheaded realists, the Bushies seem awfully easy to fool.
American hawks tied to the Israeli Likud Party, such as Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin, who are also trying to get up an American war on Iran, turn out to have the same goal as Zarqawi!
It is the case that if you did want to see the US completely defeated and humiliated, you could not do better than have Washington open a second conventiional front in Iran. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, more rugged in terrain, and 3 times more populous, and its population is politically savvy, literate and highly mobilized.
So, it doesn't matter whether you listen to Ledeen and Rubin on attacking Iran or to Zarqawi on the same subject. Either way, such a move spells disaster for the United States and should be opposed by genuine patriots who care about this country--until and unless Iran actually does something to the US that calls for a military response.
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/16/2006 06:24:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
18 Comments:
Maybe Al-Zarqawi or part of Al-Zarqawi was a black psy ops run by people like Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin
Juan,
Do you consider those newly found Zarqawi documents to be authentic?
Bring 'em on!
Let's see if the U.S.A. in Persia can be as tough as the Red Army in the Winter War.
"until and unless Iran actuall does something to the US that calls for a military response."
Better make damned sure it's not a false flag operation, too, given the story above......
Of course the US regime (whether the present Bush crew or the contemptible likely Democrat alternatives) will display their characteristic restraint and caution in responding to any incident, won't they?
It is not a far stretch to believe or understand that many factions have it in for the United States, some "friendly", some not. We have to accept that those who are so mired in the belief systems originating or emanating from the "Hol(e)y Lands" are not any more inclined to be friendly to the US than they have to be. While many people are not clued in on the histories of the various countries or states (as they are not able to identify them on a map), those who live "over there" are very keen on knowing and understanding what has happened to them and their antecedents, religions aside. Consequently, the memories, first-hand or passed down, are so vivid that the offended will do whatever they can to exact revenge for past transgressions.
Whether it's the repulsion at Vienna ca. 15th or 16th Century or the revulsion at some massacre or other deadly event or the regression caused by "Western" intervention (sanctions, coups, failed promises, and so on), any opportunity presenting itself will be welcomed as a chance to get back at the perceived perpetrators or the next best candidates.
Removing any or all incentives for the "Western" powers to interfere in the region is the best ploy, as we've seen with the wearing down of the will to fight and the desire to succeed by many of the almost 60% of the Americans now thinking Iraq was an error. All we need now are the Arab cheerleaders in appropriate regional garb, chanting, "Push 'em back, push 'em back, push 'em back harder!"
It may be said that too many cooks spoil the meal, but this is part of the strategy with all of the on-scene factions spicing up the dishes that the Buscists intended to consume. A little too much time in the region, too much money expended, too many casualties, too little perceptible success. Terrorists, nationalists, insurgents on all sides, religious tensions all contribute to the misadventures not concluding to most peoples' tastes. This conflict is not anyone's average fast-food fare and the old joke about the restaurant having to go out and raise the cow before it gets slaughtered and cooked, requiring too much time in waiting is quite applicable and rings true.
World War Two took four to six years (depending on who was in the fight) to complete. The previous edition of the European Civil War took four years. While in retrospect we can see the progress made, how many times were the gains imperilled by risky plans and manoeuvers? How deeply were the Americans sucked in to attempting to take a bridge -- or in this case, a country -- too far? Have the Arabs actually learned from history while the princely perfumed Americans and their Angaloid footmen not?
Juan,
No so much "easy to fool" as just hard-headed and impossible to inform or educate. This WH does what they want come hell or high water and everything supports their pre-conceived notions no matter how absurd.
Thanks for all of your work.
capt
The al-Queda in Iraq strategy of further involving the US in wars across the Middle-East is just a confirmation that seducing such involvement has been the long-range strategy of OBL.
Recent comments made by Judith Miller regarding information she received about the attack on the USS Cole are illustrative:
"...the story is that two members of Al Qaida overheard on an intercept (and I assumed that it was the National Security Agency, because that's who does these things) were heard complaining about the lack of American response to the Cole, but also … contemplating what would happen the next time, when there was, as they said, the impending major attack that was being planned. They said this was such a big attack that the U.S. would have to respond.' (http://alternet.org/story/36388/)
The neo-cons did not read enough Uncle Remus or they would have known the story of Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, and the briar patch. Like Brer Rabbit, bin Laden is a master of paradoxical intention: "please don't throw me into that briar patch"? Right, please don't invade the Middle East Mr. President.
You cannot fight in the black ops, agit-prop, and back alley realm without being similarly targeted. It is fruitless.
How about a IC feedback on the views of the more civil discussants on ways to exit Iraq? Is Iraqization the solution or the poison? Should the US use more force or less?
See:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faresponse85412/larry-diamond-james-dobbins-chaim-kaufmann-leslie-h-gelb-stephen-biddle/what-to-do-in-iraq-a-roundtable.html
Have they got the facts right? Do any of them come closer to a "best hope" answer?
You believe the documents found at Zarqawi's safehouse are authentic, Dr. Cole?
Lawrence Wright has an interesting small piece in this week's New Yorker on Zarqawi's influence of Al Qaeda and global jihad. Al Qaeda in Iraq, Wright says, was morphed by Zarqawi into a gang befitting its leader's thuggish background. The war of Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri against the hegemony of the West and its support of appostate regimes seems to have degraded back into sectarian and tribal warfare.
While watching the on-going House debate today, I couldn't help but feel that no one understands this region. Of course everyone feels free to pontificate, but nuance and complexity are nowhere to be found. How can we extricate ourselves from this mess if continue to wave swords at a straw-man?
In fairness to the Bush Administration, there are serious analyasts who believe in a connection between Zarqawi and Iran. Time Reporter Michael Ware, one of the most well-respected authorities on the insurgency, believes that Iran is giving support to al-Zarqawi. Frankly, I would be shocked if Iran wasn't supporting all elements of the insurgency, including Zarqawi. If you think back to how the neocons were saying that Tehran's days were numbered after things were settled in Iraq, it makes perfect sense for Iran to use every tool at its disposal to bog the United States down in a quaqmire, even a jihadist who thinks the Shia are takfir.
However, even if it's true that Iran is supporting Zarqawi, that doesn't obligate us to support the Neocon approach with Iran. On the contrary, ending the confrontation between Iran and the United State is a prerequisite to bringing stability to Iraq.
The legacy of the Bush White House and the Neoconservatives movement will go down in history as our country's Charlie Manson moment on a grand scale.
This document smells like rotten fish. I see an article where a US military official denies the claim of the Iraqi intel official. The Arabic document translated into a sophisticated English document. Zarqawi's staff must have been trained by DIA or CIA. Also, the Jerusalem Post had this translation a day or two back, smells like the Iranian religious patchs that was slipped in from Canada and the Neocons.
"After they fell for the biggest whoppers of the 21st century, as retailed by Ahmad Chalabi, have Bush administration officials been gullibly swallowing an al-Qaeda black psy-ops operation intended to mire US troops in the Dasht-i Kavir? For people who think of themselves as tough as nails hardheaded realists, the Bushies seem awfully easy to fool."
OK. I'll run with this.
Identification of a successor to al-Zarqawi benefits whom? It benefits anyone who wants to believe Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a serious threat to Iraq, the US and the world (Israel). It was necessary to this group to have an immediate successor to Zarqawi, thus proving how dangerous he was. (See Wolcotts article on how many times the Jordanians said, "Look! There he is." and the American commanders responded with their surfer dude imitation.)
This group includes easily fooled Bush administration hawks seeking continued justification for their war. It includes people of influence seeking to protect the world (Israel) from terrorism by advancing the world's agenda (Israel's agenda) at the expense of US causalties, funding and future diplomatic effectiveness. It also includes people in Iraq and al Qaeda who are enemies of the US.
Winners: al Qaeda, the world (Israel)
Losers: Iraq, the US
Yes, the Bushies (hedge?) are easily fooled. So is the MSM.
1. It cannot possibly be in the interests of the Bush administration to have it known that Zarqawi was planning to draw the US into a war with Iran. I therefore conclude that the document is authentic.
2. Peter, the idea of Iran supporting Zarqawi is ridiculous. And it now turns out that the likely origin of this idea was . . . Zarqawi.
good article juan.
It's not that much of a stretch when you look at these events in history...
Bin Laden and co. in Afghanistan see first hand the power of costing a large country A LOT of money in a war as a way to defeat a country with more power and money but less local support.
Bin Laden and co. try to get the United States to enter into a war in the Middle East against Saudi Arabia by launching the 9/11 attacks. This they hope will cause an overthrow of the Saudi regime so they can take power there. (Why Bin Laden picked so many of the hijackers as Saudi's).
U.S. instead attacks Iraq ??? So they opt for getting the U.S. and Iran to tango as a way to depleat the U.S. of resources and they would hope to take Iraq and Iran for themselves after both were disrupted and in chaos (and the U.S. would be too broke after all that to stick around).
Then they would make their move on the Saudi regime.
"It cannot possibly be in the interests of the Bush administration to have it known that Zarqawi was planning to draw the US into a war with Iran."
If it wasn't in Bush's interests to have this known, why did the US military translate it into English and release it?
Post a Comment
<< Home