February 18th, 2010 | Author: Patriot
Stephen Sniegoski: Fragmentation of Iraq Was Israel’s Strategy
Despite the alleged success of the surge, it is now apparent that sectarian hostility between Sunni and Shiite was not permanently reduced in Iraq but only temporarily quieted, and that once American troops leave, or are greatly reduced in number, extensive violence will breakout. This is brought out in the Washington Post article—“Just weeks before elections, specter of sectarian violence resurfaces in Iraq,” by Leila Fadel (February 17, 2010)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021606003_pf.html
Such sectarian violence was the inevitable result of the American invasion and was fully recognized before the US invaded. As I point out in my book “The Transparent Cabal,” the neocons adopted a Middle East war strategy for the US that originated in Israel, which had as its deliberate goal the fragmentation of Israel’s adversaries. As Oded Yinon, the best articulator of this strategy, maintained in his 1982 article, the Arab states were fragile entities that were held together by an authoritarian central governments. A defeat in war would lead to the splintering of those states into conflicting ethnic and sectarian religious groups, which would facilitate Israeli regional hegemony. It should be added that Israel Shahak’s translation of Yinon’s article was entitled “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”
The neocons picked up this idea of fragile states that could be fragmented by war for their “Clean Break” agenda (authors of which included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser), which they presented to then-incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996. Wurmser authored a much longer follow-up document entitled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant” focused on this same theme of state fragility.
As I wrote regarding the “Clean Break” study in my book, “The Transparent Cabal”:
“In sum, the ‘Clean Break’ study was an astounding document that has been given insufficient attention by the mainstream American media. Though written to advance the interests of a foreign country, it appears to be a rough blueprint for actual Bush administration policy, with which some of the “Clean Break” authors – Perle, Feith, and Wurmser – were intimately involved. The question that immediately arises concerns the loyalty and motives of the three authors. When formulating and implementing American policy for the Bush II administration, were they acting in the interests of America or of Israel?” (p. 93)
The neocons certainly believed that the policy would aid Israel. The question is: did they sincerely believe this policy would help the US? If they did, which is quite likely given that most people engage in self-deception for their own interests, the neocons obviously viewed American national security through the lens of Israel’s interests.
River to SeaDespite the alleged success of the surge, it is now apparent that sectarian hostility between Sunni and Shiite was not permanently reduced in Iraq but only temporarily quieted, and that once American troops leave, or are greatly reduced in number, extensive violence will breakout. This is brought out in the Washington Post article—“Just weeks before elections, specter of sectarian violence resurfaces in Iraq,” by Leila Fadel (February 17, 2010)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021606003_pf.html
Such sectarian violence was the inevitable result of the American invasion and was fully recognized before the US invaded. As I point out in my book “The Transparent Cabal,” the neocons adopted a Middle East war strategy for the US that originated in Israel, which had as its deliberate goal the fragmentation of Israel’s adversaries. As Oded Yinon, the best articulator of this strategy, maintained in his 1982 article, the Arab states were fragile entities that were held together by an authoritarian central governments. A defeat in war would lead to the splintering of those states into conflicting ethnic and sectarian religious groups, which would facilitate Israeli regional hegemony. It should be added that Israel Shahak’s translation of Yinon’s article was entitled “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”
The neocons picked up this idea of fragile states that could be fragmented by war for their “Clean Break” agenda (authors of which included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser), which they presented to then-incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996. Wurmser authored a much longer follow-up document entitled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant” focused on this same theme of state fragility.
As I wrote regarding the “Clean Break” study in my book, “The Transparent Cabal”:
“In sum, the ‘Clean Break’ study was an astounding document that has been given insufficient attention by the mainstream American media. Though written to advance the interests of a foreign country, it appears to be a rough blueprint for actual Bush administration policy, with which some of the “Clean Break” authors – Perle, Feith, and Wurmser – were intimately involved. The question that immediately arises concerns the loyalty and motives of the three authors. When formulating and implementing American policy for the Bush II administration, were they acting in the interests of America or of Israel?” (p. 93)
The neocons certainly believed that the policy would aid Israel. The question is: did they sincerely believe this policy would help the US? If they did, which is quite likely given that most people engage in self-deception for their own interests, the neocons obviously viewed American national security through the lens of Israel’s interests.
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment